MILITARY CASES

 

United States v. Mahoney
58 M.J. 346 (C.A.A.F. 2003)  

In court-martial proceedings for use of cocaine, the government violated Brady by failing to provide the defendant with a letter that had been written by a command staff judge advocate criticizing the prosecution’s expert witness for his testimony in prior court-martials and questioning whether his employment should be continued. In particular, the letter complained about the expert’s lack of enthusiasm for the military’s drug testing program and his criticism of studies that other forensic toxicologists rely upon. In finding that disclosure of this letter was required, the appeals court rejected the government’s defense that the trial prosecutor did not know of the letter. The court concluded that "it would have become known to him by the exercise of reasonable diligence," and that appropriate inquiry would have led to discovery of the letter. Because the letter arguably created a significant motive for the expert to testify positively about lab procedures and underlying scientific studies, cross-examination about the letter could have enhanced the defense case which centered on attacking the procedural regularity and reliably of urinalysis.

United States v. Stewart
62 M.J. 668 (A.F. Crim. App. 2006)

Prosecution violated Brady in rape case by belatedly disclosing the alleged victim’s medical records which indicated a wide variety of medical conditions and drugs which could have provided an alternative explanation for the symptoms she displayed after drinking a beverage provided by defendant. The prosecution theory was that defendant intentionally drugged the victim and then raped her after she was unconscious. Although there was a suggestion of a type of “date rape” drug found in the victim’s urine sample, it was too small to be considered a “positive” result. The defense did not receive the medical records until after the prosecution’s case in chief had concluded. The remedy offered – a new opening argument, re-cross of the victim, and stipulated testimony by the prosecution toxicologist – was inadequate to cure the harm in light of the defense’s explanation about the ways its strategy would have been different had it possessed the records earlier.

United States v. Winningham
2006 WL 2266827 (A.F. Crim. App. July 26, 2006) (unpublished)

Brady violation found in rape case where prosecution failed to disclose identity of and statement by a witness who was told by defendant, sometime after the alleged offense, that the sexual encounter had been consensual and that the victim had been awake, contrary to her allegations.