2017 (October Term)
United States v. Honea, 77 M.J. 181 (when an accused pleads not guilty to an offense, it is the government’s responsibility to identify the charges against the accused).
2010 (September Term)United
States v. Flores, 69 M.J. 366 (a guilty plea
and related statements to one
offense cannot be admitted to prove any element of a separate offense;
however,
this prohibition does not apply when using a plea to a lesser included
offense
to prove a common fact or element of a greater offense).
United
States v. Smead, 68 M.J. 44 (where a plea is
not knowing and voluntary, it
has been obtained in violation of due process and is therefore void).
United
States v. Kaiser, 58 MJ 146 (in a mixed plea case,
in the
absence of a specific request made by the accused on the record,
members of a
court-martial should not be informed of any prior pleas of guilty until
after
findings on the remaining contested offenses are made).
(a military judge errs by providing a flyer to a panel that contains
the
specifications to which an accused has pleaded guilty, where there is
no
specific request made by the accused that such advance notification be
given to
the members).
(error in the military judge providing advance notification to
members of
guilty pleas in a mixed plea case directly implicates the presumption
of
innocence; an accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence
throughout his
trial; he has a right to have his guilt or innocence of the contested
specifications determined by the members solely on the basis of legal
and
competent evidence introduced at trial and not on other grounds, i.e.,
his pleas of guilty to other similar specifications).