2021 (October Term)
United States v. Quezada, 82 M.J. 54 (an appellate court presumes that members follow a military judge’s instructions absent evidence to the contrary).
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).
2007
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. 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).
2002
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).
2000
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).