2014 (September Term)

United States v. Piren, 74 M.J. 24 (an accused is not required to testify in his defense and his failure to do so may not be the basis for any inference against him). 



United States v. Hall, 58 MJ 90 (evidence of urinalysis tests, their results, and expert testimony explaining them is sufficient to permit a factfinder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that an accused used contraband drugs; the factfinder may draw a permissible inference of wrongfulness from a circumstantial showing of drug use based on such evidence; this evidence is legally sufficient as long as the defense evidence of innocent ingestion could be reasonably disbelieved by the factfinder).



United States v. New, 55 MJ 95 (orders are clothed with an inference of lawfulness).


United States v. Campbell, 50 MJ 154 (to sustain a drug prosecution based upon an urinalysis and to support the inferences of knowing and wrongful use, the test results must be supported by expert testimony explaining the underlying scientific methodology and the significance of the test result, so as to provide a rational basis for the inferences of knowing and wrongful use).

(to support the inference of wrongful use of drugs, the prosecutionís expert testimony must show:  (1) that the metabolite is not naturally produced by the body or any substance other than the drug in question; (2) that the cutoff level and reported concentration are high enough to reasonably discount the possibility of unknowing ingestion and to indicate a reasonable likelihood that the user at some time would have experienced the physical and psychological effects of the drug; and (3) that the testing methodology reliably detected the presence and reliably quantified the concentration of the drug or metabolite in the sample).

Home Page |  Opinions & Digest  |  Daily Journal  |  Scheduled Hearings  |  Search Site