2008 (Transition)
United States v. Mackie, 66 M.J. 198
(a military judge abuses his discretion when the findings of fact upon
which he
predicates his ruling are not supported by the evidence of record, if
incorrect
legal principles were used, or if his application of the correct legal
principles to the facts is clearly unreasonable).
(the military judge abused his
discretion in this case by denying the defense
request for a sanity board, where the trial defense counsel detailed
concerns
that because of the accused’s memory loss, he might not be able to
assist in
his own defense, might not be fit to stand trial, and that similar
memory loss
may have occurred during the alleged misconduct, where the accused
submitted an
affidavit detailing specific instances of blackouts and memory loss
over a
six-month period, and where the opinions of the accused’s treating
clinical
psychologist in the form of a stipulation of expected testimony were
not an
adequate substitute for a sanity board; this psychologist had seen the
accused
twice by appointment and once for a brief walk-in conversation, never
conducted
a forensic examination or participated in a sanity board, and was
unaware of
the accused’s claimed memory losses and blackouts).
2007
United States v. Moran, 65 M.J. 178 (military
judges, unlike lay members, are presumed capable of filtering out
inadmissible evidence).
2006
(both the
accused and the government are
permitted to question the military judge and to present evidence
regarding a
possible ground for disqualification; should grounds arise, the
military judge
shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which that
military
judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned).
United
States v. Hill, 62
M.J. 271 (MRE 606(b) does not apply to military judges; an
extra-judicial
statement by a military judge may be given appropriate consideration on
appeal,
subject to certain qualifications).
(as a general matter, military judges are
presumed to know the rules of evidence and to consider testimony only
for
permissible purposes; that presumption is strengthened by the prompt
action of
a trial judge, which expressly cuts off and rejects questionable
testimony;
just as it is presumed that the members follow the instructions of the
military
judge, it is also presumed that a military judge adheres to his own
evidentiary
rulings).
2000
United
States v. Robbins, 52 MJ 455 (a military judge is
presumed
to know the law and apply it properly, is presumed capable of filtering
out
inadmissible evidence, and is presumed not to have relied on such
evidence on
the question of guilt or innocence).
United
States v. Norfleet, 53 MJ 262 (military judges are
expected to render decisions that may adversely impact on their
superior
officers; such decisions by the military judiciary are essential to the
maintenance of a military justice system that not only is fair, but
that also
is perceived to be fair by members of the armed forces and the public).
1999