2014 (September Term)
United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (a challenge for change of venue based on pervasive pretrial publicity is reviewed by an appellate court for an abuse of discretion).
(servicemembers are entitled to have their cases adjudged by fair and impartial court-martial panels whose evaluation is based solely upon the evidence, not pretrial publicity; pretrial publicity by itself is not enough, however, for a change of venue; instead, an accused is entitled to a change of venue if the pretrial publicity creates so great a prejudice against the accused that the accused cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial).
2003
United
States v. Simpson, 58 MJ 368 (the defense may
raise the
issue of unfair pretrial publicity by demonstrating either presumed
prejudice
or actual prejudice; to establish presumed prejudice, the defense must
show
that the pretrial publicity (1) is prejudicial, (2) is inflammatory,
and (3)
has saturated the community; depending on the circumstances of the
case, the
potential for prejudice may be ameliorated through measures such as a
continuance, change of venue, sequestration, and regulation of public
comment
by counsel; to establish actual prejudice, the defense must show that
members
of the court-martial panel had such fixed opinions that they could not
judge
impartially the guilt of the accused; without such a showing, evidence
that the
members had knowledge of highly significant information or other
incriminating
matters is insufficient).
(where appellant failed to show that the community was saturated
with
inflammatory prejudicial material, where relatively few of the articles
directly referred to appellant, and where the members were ordered to
avoid
media coverage of trainee abuse issues, appellant failed to demonstrate
presumed prejudice).