2015 (September Term)
Howell v. United States, 75 M.J. 386 (after a new trial is ordered, no vestiges of the former court‑martial should linger; an order granting a new trial reopens the whole case, which then stands for trial de novo, and places the accused in the same position as if no trial had been had; the grant of a new trial wipes the slate clean as if no previous conviction and sentence had existed; under this longstanding interpretation of what a rehearing entails, if an accused is released from confinement awaiting rehearing, his pay status – at least insofar as the UCMJ is concerned – should be the same as if he had never been tried in the first instance).
2008 (September Term)
States v. Von Bergen, 67 M.J. 290 (the effect of
rehearing is to place the United States and the accused in the same
they were at the beginning of the original trial; as one of the first
a general court-martial proceeding is an Article 32, UCMJ,
unless the accused waives it, one of the first steps at a rehearing in
general court-martial proceeding should likewise be an Article 32,
investigation if not previously afforded to the accused).
United States v. Albaaj, 65 M.J. 167 (in determining
whether a new trial is warranted when there is an allegation that a
juror failed to disclose information during voir dire, a party must
first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material
question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response
would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause).
States v. Sonego, 61 M.J. 1 (to obtain a new trial due to an
dire response, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to
honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a
response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause).