2010 (September Term)
United States v. Hull, 70 M.J. 145 (requests for a new trial, and thus rehearings and reopenings of trial proceedings, are generally disfavored, and are granted only if a manifest injustice would result absent a new trial, rehearing, or reopening based on proffered newly discovered evidence).
United
States v. Luke, 69 M.J. 309 (RCM 1210(f)(2)
sets forth the grounds
for granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence;
specifically, a
new trial shall not be granted on the grounds of newly discovered
evidence
unless the petition shows that (1) the evidence was discovered after
the trial,
(2) the evidence is not such that it would have been discovered by the
petitioner at the time of trial in the exercise of due diligence, and
(3) the
newly discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the
light of all
other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more
favorable
result for the accused).
(with respect to whether a new
trial should be
granted based on newly discovered evidence, the reviewing court must
make a
credibility determination, insofar as it must determine whether the
newly
discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the light of
all other
pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more
favorable
result for the accused; the reviewing court does not determine whether
the
proffered evidence is true; nor does it determine historical facts; it
merely
decides if the evidence is sufficiently believable to make a more
favorable
result probable).
(newly discovered evidence
that forensic
chemist who conducted serology analysis of the evidence in appellant’s
case was
later disciplined for lack of thoroughness and mishandling evidence in
other
cases did not make appellant’s conviction for indecent assault
unreliable so as
to require a new trial; there was no indication that the evidence had
been
contaminated during the serological examination in appellant’s case,
and while
evidence of the forensic chemist’s misconduct could have been used for
impeachment as to his competence, it related only to the performance of
the
serology screening and not to the DNA tests, which were conducted by
another
expert; absent any showing of the probability of contamination in the
serology
screening, the newly discovered evidence would probably not have
produced a
substantially more favorable result).
United
States v. Webb, 66 M.J. 89 (prior to
authentication, a military judge has
authority under Article 39(a), UCMJ, and RCM 1102(b)(2) to convene a
post-trial
session to consider newly discovered evidence and to take whatever
remedial
action is appropriate).
2005
United
States
v. Meghdadi, 60 M.J. 438 (if evidence is discovered after trial
which would
constitute grounds for a new trial under RCM 1210(f), this might
be
considered a matter which arises after trial and which substantially
affects
the legal sufficiency of any findings of guilty or the sentence within
the
meaning of RCM 1102(b)(2); however, even if the drafters of the Manual
did not
intend such an interpretation of this Rule, we still are persuaded that
Article
39(a) of the Code empowers the military judge to convene a post-trial
session
to consider newly discovered evidence and to take whatever remedial
action is
appropriate).
United
States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391 (RCM 1210(f)(2) provides that a new
trial
shall not be granted on the grounds of newly discovered evidence unless
the
petition demonstrates that (1) the
evidence was
discovered after the trial; (2) the evidence is not such that it would
have
been discovered by the petitioner at the time of trial in the exercise
of due
diligence; and (3) the newly discovered evidence, if considered by a
court-martial in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would
probably
produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused).
(the
accused
exercised due diligence, as required for a new trial based on newly
discovered
evidence of his mental state at the time of the alleged offenses, even
if he
failed to disclose information about his mental state at the pretrial
sanity
board, where his counsel requested such a board).
(in
light of the
newly discovered post-trial evidence regarding the accused’s mental
illness at
the time of the offenses, the competing views as to its impact on
responsibility, and the defense counsel’s consequent inability to
prepare and
fully develop an affirmative defense of mental responsibility prior to
trial,
this evidence would probably produce a substantially more favorable
result for
the accused on the contested offenses, thus fulfilling the requirements
for a
new trial based on newly discovered evidence).
1999
United
States v. Gray, 51 MJ 1 (to warrant a new trial on the
grounds
of newly discovered evidence, appellant must show: (1) the
evidence was
discovered after the trial; (2) the evidence is not such that it would
have
been discovered by the petitioner at the time of trial in the exercise
of due
diligence; and (3) the newly discovered evidence, if considered by a
court-martial
in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a
substantially more favorable result for the accused).
(in reviewing petition for new trial on the basis of newly
discovered
evidence relating to a capital accused’s mental condition and state,
the
reviewing authority must also determine beyond a reasonable doubt
whether a
reasonable factfinder, considering the totality of the evidence, would
be
convinced by clear and convincing evidence that petitioner lacked
mental responsibility
for his crimes or should not get the death penalty for them).