2010 (September Term)
United
States v. Lofton, 69 M.J. 386 (when asked, a
military judge shall exclude
witnesses from the courtroom so that they cannot hear the testimony of
other
witnesses; the purpose of the sequestration rule is to prevent
witnesses from
shaping their testimony to match another’s and to discourage
fabrication and
collusion).
(court-martial spectators
should not provide
summaries of testimony to sequestered witnesses, and the parties and
the
military judge should be vigilant in preventing such incidents).
(prejudice under the
sequestration rule of MRE
615 is determined by considering whether the witness’s testimony was
affected
by the trial proceedings that the witness heard).
United States v. Quintanilla, 63 M.J. 29 (Military Rule of Evidence 615 provides for the exclusion of witnesses at the request of either party).
2000
United
States v. Langston, 53 MJ 335 (MRE 615, “Exclusion
of
witnesses”, did apply to appellant’s providence inquiry in this
mixed-pleas case
because: (1) appellant’s responses during providence inquiry were
judicial
(military judge’s erroneous decision not to sequester witnesses
during
appellant’s providence inquiry was harmless and did not materially
prejudice
appellant’s substantial rights where: (1) there was no reasonable
possibility
that one witness’s testimony was altered by what she heard during
providence
inquiry; (2) there was no dispute as to how certain offenses occurred
or any
conflict with appellant’s
1999
United
States v. Spann, 51
MJ 89 (military judge erred in relying on 42 USC § 10606 as the
basis
for rejecting a motion to sequester a victim and her mother who were to
testify
on sentencing; see MRE 615).
United
States v. Roth, 52 MJ 187 (sequestration and sanctions
for
violations of a sequestration order are matters within the discretion
of the
court, and such matters will be reviewed on appeal under an abuse of
discretion
standard).
(MRE 615 dealing with exclusion of witnesses from the court room is
a rule
of evidence which may be relaxed during the sentencing portion of the
trial).
(military
judge abused her
discretion
by excluding testimony of defense rebuttal witness during sentencing as
a
sanction for non-sequestration where: (1) the witness was
prepared to
dispute a significant piece of evidence; (2) government counsel did not
ask the
witness to leave the room during government’s aggravation evidence, and
there
is nothing to suggest that defense counsel engaged in any deliberate or
willful
improper manner; (3) the ultimate sanction of excluding the witness’s
testimony
should be used ordinarily to punish intentional or willful disobedience
of
sequestration orders; (4) the government would not have been prejudiced
by the
testimony of the witness; and, (5) the issue upon which the witness
would
testify was important in sentencing, and it was fundamentally unfair to
leave
testimony of government witness unrebutted).