2024 (October Term)
United States v. Navarro Aguirre, 86 M.J. 43 (an inference is unreasonable if it requires the jury to engage in a degree of speculation and conjecture that renders its findings a guess or mere possibility; after all, inferences must stop at some point; to this end, at some point along a rational continuum, inferences may become so attenuated from underlying evidence as to cast doubt on the trier of fact's ultimate conclusion).
United States v. Saul, 86 M.J. 30 (a permissive inference, also called a permissive presumption, is a presumption that a trier of fact is free to accept or reject from a given set of facts).
2018 (October Term)
United States v. Lewis, 78 M.J. 447 (a military judge is allowed to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence presented).
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).
2003
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).
2001
United
States v. New, 55 MJ 95 (orders are clothed with
an
inference of lawfulness).
1999
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).