2008 (Transition)
United
States v. Webb, 66 M.J. 89 (an appellate
court reviews a military judge’s
decision to order a new trial for an abuse of discretion; a military
judge
abuses her discretion when her findings of fact are clearly erroneous,
the
court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the
military
judge’s decision on the issue at hand is outside the range of choices
reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law).
2005
United
States v. Harris, 61 M.J. 391 (the
appropriate standard of review for service courts considering the
impact of newly
discovered evidence regarding mental responsibility is a reasonable
doubt
standard: is the court convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that
reasonable
factfinders would not find by clear and convincing evidence that, at
the time
of the offense, appellant suffered from a severe mental disease or
defect such
as to be unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the
wrongfulness of his
acts?).
(because
the US
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces does not have factfinding
authority, it
does not apply the reasonable doubt standard of the lower court in
reviewing
requests for new trials on the ground of mental responsibility; rather,
it applies the separate standard set forth
in RCM
1210(f)(2)(C) that requires that the accused demonstrate that 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).
1999