2019 (October Term)
United States v. Carter, 79 M.J. 478 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, an appellant bears the burden of proving that the performance of his defense counsel was deficient and that he was prejudiced by the error; judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential, and an appellate court must indulge in a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; to overcome the presumption, an appellant must show specific defects in counsel’s performance that were unreasonable under prevailing professional norms).
(absent evidence to the contrary, a jury is presumed to have complied with the judge’s instructions).
2018 (October Term)
United States v. Hale, 78 M.J. 268 (an appellate court presumes that the panel followed the instructions given by the military judge).
2014 (September Term)
United States v. Piolunek, 74 M.J. 107 (while members are not presumed to be suited to make legal determinations of constitutional law, they are presumed to be competent to make factual determinations as to guilt; when jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error; the opposite is true, however, when they have been left the option of relying upon a factually inadequate theory, because jurors are well equipped to analyze the evidence; moreover, in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise, a jury is presumed to have complied with the instructions given them by the judge).
2013 (September Term)
United States v. Elespuru, 73 M.J. 326 (a waiver is ordinarily an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege; there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, although no magic words are required to establish a waiver; the determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case).
2010 (September Term)
United States v. Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (there is a presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be effective it must be clearly established that there was an intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege).
2008 (September Term)
United States v. Collier, 67 M.J. 347 (members are presumed to follow a military judge’s instructions to consider evidence for a proper purpose, such as bias or motive to misrepresent, and not let personal beliefs or feelings affect their determinations about witness credibility).
United States v. Bartlett, 66 M.J. 426 (there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural).
United States v. Bridges, 66 M.J. 246 (as the sentencing authority, a military judge is presumed to know the law and apply it correctly absent clear evidence to the contrary).
United States v. Brooks, 66 M.J. 221 (there is a strong presumption that an error is not structural).
United States v. Glenn, 66 M.J. 64 (an accused is presumed to be sane and counsel is presumed to be competent).
United States v. Allende, 66 M.J. 142 (substantial omissions from the record of trial create a presumption of prejudice that may be rebutted by the government).
United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221 (military judges are presumed to know the law and to follow it absent clear evidence to the contrary; as part of this presumption, military judges are presumed to be able to distinguish between proper and improper sentencing arguments).
United States v. Harrow, 65 M.J. 190 (court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions).
United States v. Beatty, 64 M.J. 456 (the judges of
the courts of criminal appeals, as senior judge advocates, are presumed
to know and correctly apply the law; the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces will impute no intent to engage in fundamental unfairness or
rely upon off-limits tactics to the courts of criminal appeals).
United States v. Young, 64 M.J. 404 (in reviewing a case for legal sufficiency, an appellate court is bound to draw every reasonable inference from the evidence of record in favor of the prosecution).
United States v. Quintanilla, 56 MJ 37 (a panel is presumed to understand and follow the instructions of the military judge absent competent evidence to the contrary).
United States v. Tyndale, 56 MJ 209 (court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions).
United States v. Taylor, 53 MJ 195 (absent evidence to the contrary, Court of Appeals may presume that members follow a military judge’s instructions).United States v. Jenkins, 54 MJ 12 (court members are presumed to follow the military judge’s instructions).