TUCHER, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur with the majority decision on Assignments II, IV, V, and VI. I dissent from the decision on Assignments I and III.
I agree with the majority opinion that admission of the underlying details
of SR’s secret—namely,
her prior sexual encounter with an enlisted member—was subject
to some limitation under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 412. I would
find, however, that the military judge abused his discretion when he prohibited the defense from
cross-examining SR
on
her
false statement to
Appellant that the encounter
was nonconsensual, since this evidence was highly probative of
the defense theory that SR engaged in a pattern of fabrication to avoid discipline. As discussed below,
I believe that the military judge erred when he decided
the admissibility of this evidence based on his own credibili-
[564]ty determination
of the only two witnesses in- volved.
The
military judge also erred in not consider- ing
important factors that favored
admission of the defense evidence,
including that the Government made first use of evidence
of SR’s secret in its case-in-chief to prove that she was extorted and
coerced into sexual relations with Appellant; that SR’s credibility was a key element in an otherwise
uncorroborated case; and that the strength of the Government’s
case turned on the members finding
the presence of subtle psychological influences that overcame SR’s will.
The excessive restrictions imposed on Appellant’s
Sixth
Amendment confrontation
rights allowed SR to testify through non- factual euphemisms on critical
issues
related to the Government’s proof and her own credibility, and al- lowed the Government to create a substantially
different
impression of her truthfulness than what
the defense had sought to show through
the excluded evidence.
It is well-settled that “a primary interest secured by
[the confrontation clause
of the Sixth Amendment] is the right
of
cross-examination.” Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415,
418 (1965). “Cross-examination is the principal means by which the believability of a wit ness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Davis
v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316 (1974). Moreover, “the ex- posure of
a witness’ motivation in testifying is a proper and important function
of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination.”
Id. at 316-17. In military courts-martial, the right to attack the partiality of a witness is primarily secured under M.R.E. 608(c), which provides for the admission of evidence that shows bias, prejudice, or any motive to misrepresent through cross-examination
of witnesses or extrinsic evidence.
See United States v.
Hunter, 21 M.J. 240, 242
(C.M.A.
1986); United States v. Saferite, 59 M.J. 270 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
Although trial judges have broad discretion
to im- pose reasonable limits on cross-examination to address concerns over harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness’ safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant, this discretion is not without
boundaries. Where the accuracy and truth- fulness
of the witness’ testimony are “key elements” in
the Government’s case,
a trial court’s refusal to allow the
defendant to cross-examine the witness
regarding possible bias, motive, or prejudice is a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
Davis, 415 U.S. at 317-18; see also Saferite, 59 M.J. at 273 (“Evidence of bias can be powerful impeachment.”); United States
v. Moss, 63 M.J. 233, 236 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (“When the military judge excludes evidence of bias, the exclusion raises issues regarding an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.”);
United
States v. Bins, 43 M.J. 79, 84
(C.A.A.F. 1995)
(“When the defense offers this evi-
dence,
it may deny confrontation rights to exclude it.”);
United
States v. Foster, 986 F.2d 541, 543 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“The more important the
witness to the government’s case, the more important the defendant’s right,
derived from the Confrontation
Clause of the Sixth Amendment, to cross-examine the witness.”).
Evidence that SR had made
a prior false claim
of sexual assault to Appellant should
have been admissible at trial because the central issue was whether SR consented during their sexual encounter on 19 October 2005, and SR
was the only Government witness on the issue of consent. The defense should have been
able to show that because SR had falsely informed Appellant that her prohibited sexual encounter with an enlisted member was non-consensual, members could
infer that
she had followed
a similar scheme in
fabricating
a false
complaint of indecent assault against
Appellant, where the motive underlying each statement was SR’s fear of being disciplined. Here, the record of trial
shows that SR relied on Appellant to contain rumors that were circulating over what prosecutors cryptically referred to as her “bad situation” or
“secret.” (R. at 881, 901, 922- 23.) Both SR’s “bad situation”
and her encounter with
Appellant in Chase Hall involved a military nexus that, if disclosed, subjected SR to discipline. Both incidents were
connected, in that the encounter in
Chase
Hall
apparently was meant to secure Appellant’s continued assistance in “suppressing” rumors regarding the earlier encounter.
[565] I find it significant that
the Government
made
first use of evidence of SR’s secret
during its case-in-chief. Although the prosecution
was able to present evidence that SR was coerced into unwanted sexual relations with Appellant by
the implied threat that he would reveal the facts of her “bad situation,” the defense was prohibited from showing
that this same fear of disclosure weighed so heavily in
SR’s mind that she relied on Appellant to disseminate false information concerning her secret.
The anomalous result was that the members heard only the Government’s
evidence on the question of SR’s motivation in
submit- ting to Appellant’s advances, while the defense was unable to complete the picture by showing the depths of her fear and the
lengths she allegedly had gone—and was prepared to
go—to
shield the facts of her misconduct.
I disagree that the cross-examination allowed the defense was adequate
to develop SR’s motive to
testify falsely against Appellant. The sexual encounter
be- tween
SR
and Appellant had many
outward
appear-
ances of being consensual. The Government’s case
of indecent assault was not strong and turned on the members finding the existence
of coercion that was sufficient to
overcome the victim’s will. Resolving this is- sue necessarily required the
members to carefully evaluate the potentially subtle psychological pressure that resulted from
Appellant’s veiled threat to reveal
the truth about SR’s
secret—a threat
that Appellant denied
making. Certainly, one explanation
for SR’s en- counter
with Appellant was that she felt coerced into
unwanted sexual relations.
Another entirely plausible explanation was that the encounter resulted from her
own calculation that Appellant
needed additional “motivation” to
continue spreading false information on her behalf.1 Both scenarios would
account for the consider- able pressure SR was
under
after Appellant informed
her that rumors
still
were circulating about
her secret, but the latter would not necessarily describe extortion or an indecent assault.2 Appellant could not develop this alternate scenario at trial because he was prohibited from adequately addressing SR’s prior
false
statement.
In addition, the Government offered no evidence of a fresh complaint and no
other evidence to support
SR’s
1 The defense attempted to develop this alternate theory during cross-examination
of SR, but was hamstrung by its inability to speak directly to the facts of the prior false allegation. (R. at 903.)
2 In fact, the Government, in apparent acknowledgment of the subtle psychological pressures at work, responsibly determined
that it would not charge Appellant with forcible
sodomy. In
its answer and brief, the Government explained, “[a]s a practical mat- ter, it would be difficult to convict someone of forcible sodomy on these facts, however, that does not mean that the conduct was con-
sensual.” (Government Br. 7.)
account of the incident involving Appellant.
SR
was
the Government’s key
witness against Appellant—in fact, SR’s testimony was the only evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction on extortion and indecent assault. Moreover, her
own testimony
on
the question of consent was far
from conclusive. For example,
although SR testified that at one point during their en- counter she pushed Appellant’s head aside and told him, “Please don’t,” she also testified
that they kissed
each
other and exchanged
back massages; that he told her, “You don’t have to
if you don’t want to”; and that she thanked him for his support—presumably in reference to
his assistance in defusing rumors regarding her
secret. (R. at 885-86, 889-92, 914-17.) On the unusual facts of this case, it was essential that the defense be given wide latitude to explore SR’s credibility, and to fully develop any motive reasonably raised by the evidence that she would bring a false allegation of
sexual
assault against Appellant. See Moss,
63 M.J. at 236 (“rules of evidence should be read to allow liberal ad- mission of bias-type evidence”).
The members eventually did hear SR admit that her
secret involved a violation
of Cadet Regulations (R. at 899), and
that she had misled Appellant
about the circumstances,
saying, “Yes,
I did lie to him” (R.
at 901).
In addition, defense counsel argued in closing that
SR “admitted she
lied to Cadet Smith.” (R. at 1510.) This limited impeachment allowed the defense was in- adequate given that
a general
attack on a witness’
credibility is not the same as a showing of bias or mo-tive. See Davis, 415 U.S. at 316-[566]17.
Here, the
members never were able to
place SR’s admission that she had lied
to Appellant in any factual context, be- cause they never heard what the secret was or what she had lied about. The members only heard that SR
had lied to Appellant in the past, not why she would have lied in bringing allegations against Appellant.
More importantly, SR was able to minimize her lie
to Appellant by testifying that she had only omitted certain details from her account, saying, “I just didn’t tell him all that occurred,” and also that she told him, “I’m not gonna ask you to lie for me.” (R. at 902-03.) Her testimony
on this point created a substantially dif- ferent impression
of her credibility than what the defense had
tried to show—namely, that SR had knowingly provided Appellant with false information, which he then
used to counter a career-threatening rumor. See Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 232 (1988) (defendant states a violation of Confrontation Clause if a “reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression of [the witness’] credibility” had excluded line of cross-examination
been allowed). Establishing this point was essential, as the crux of Appellant’s defense was that SR
had followed
a pattern of fabrication to avoid discipline that was revealed by
like motives from a prior scheme. Given this record, where SR was able to
downplay her lie as a mere omission of details, and
the defense was not allowed to inform the members
what SR had lied about or the lengths she was prepared to go to protect her career, the members may well have concluded
that the
defense was engaged
in a “speculative
and baseless line of attack on the credibility of an apparently blameless witness.” Davis, 415 U.S. at 318.
The military
judge
issued his ruling
under
M.R.E.
412, which broadly prohibits the introduction
of evidence of a victim’s
past
sexual behavior or sexual predisposition, unless the evidence fits into one of three
narrow exceptions.3 Appellant moved to admit the facts of SR’s secret under M.R.E. 412(b)(1)(C), which provides an exception for “evidence
the exclusion
of which would violate
the constitutional rights of the accused.”4 Evidence that is offered under an enumerated exception to M.R.E.
412 shall be admitted if the
military judge determines that the evidence is relevant and that the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair
prejudice—i.e., prejudice to the privacy interests of the alleged victim. See M.R.E.
412(c)(3); United States
v. Sanchez, 44 M.J. 174, 178 (C.A.A.F. 1996). In addition, relevant evidence that is offered under the constitutionally required
exception must be admitted
if it is material and favorable to the defense, and therefore is necessary. United States v. Banker, 60 M.J. 216, 222 (C.A.A.F. 2004).
3 M.R.E. 412 is modeled after Federal Rule of Evidence 412 and is intended to protect victims
of sexual offenses from degrad- ing and embarrassing disclosure of intimate details of their private lives while preserving the constitutional rights of the accused to present a defense. Appendix 22 at A22-36,
Manual for Courts- Martial, United States (2005 ed.).
4 I agree with the majority that the trial defense team did not
precisely address the admissibility of the evidence in
terms of SR’s “motive” to fabricate. Indeed, it appears that the defense objection has assumed greater clarity and focus on appeal.
The defense, however, did argue at trial that the evidence
implicated Appellant’s confrontation rights to show the witness’s “biases and …
credibility,” in that it revealed SR’s
“pattern” of claiming that prohibited consensual relations were coerced when disclosure could be damaging to her career. (R. at 97-98.) By focusing on SR’s
conscious decision to
lie under similar circumstances in
order
to avoid punishment, the defense adequately
raised the issue of SR’s mo- tive to fabricate allegations against Appellant.
In
a detailed ruling, the military judge correctly
determined that
evidence of a prior false claim of sexual assault was relevant evidence
of SR’s motive to
make a false claim of indecent assault
against Appellant,
stating, “I
agree that this theory
would
be a valid reason for admitting this
evidence under M.R.E.
412(b)(1)(C)
….” (Appellate Ex. CLIII at 3.)
The military judge reasoned:
[I]f
the members hear that [SR] originally told Cadet Smith that a sexual encounter with an- other man was non-consensual, and then later
admitted that it in fact was consensual,
then the members could … infer that the same thing is happening in this case. Id.
However, the military
judge
then went on to
conclude that the evidence had “low” probative
value
be- cause:
[567] [T]he evidence proffered that [SR]
made these
statements is not strong since it comes from
the accused,
who has an obvious bias. [SR]’s written
statement and Article 32 testimony
on this point is not clear. She admitted at the Article 32 that she only partially confided in
Cadet
Smith in May and fully confided in him on October 19th; however, this is far from proof that she initially claimed that the encounter was non-consensual. In fact, it
is
consistent
with the rest of Cadet Smith’s Article 39(a) testimony that on October
19th she told him the scope of
the sexual encounter had been greater than
she had previously described. Id.
I would find that the military judge erred when he decided the probative value of motive evidence based on his evaluation of the credibility
of the only two witnesses involved.
It
is the members’ role to determine whether a witness’ testimony
is credible or biased. Bins, 43 M.J. at 85. “In applying M.R.E. 412, the judge is not asked to determine if
the proffered evidence is true; it is for the members to weigh the evidence and determine its
veracity.” Banker, 60 M.J. at
224. Accordingly,
relevant
and material evidence of a prior false allegation of sexual
assault is no less admissible merely because it
is
offered through
the testimony of the criminal
accused.
This is
particularly so here, where SR—the only other witness to the conversation in issue—secured her unavailability to testify
at
the motions hearing
by invoking her rights
against self- incrimination.5 (R. at 79.) In a credibility contest be- tween Appellant and SR,
it should have been up to
the members to resolve discrepancies in their respective accounts and decide whom to believe.
As a second basis for excluding the defense evidence,
the military judge concluded that SR’s state-
5 Because SR refused to testify, the military judge based his
findings on Appellant’s
in-court testimony, SR’s prior written
statement, and the non-verbatim summary of her Article 32 testimony. Based on my
review of the complete record, I would find that
there was at least a reasonable probability that SR provided Appellant with a false account of her secret—namely that the en- counter was non-consensual—which
he then used to counter rumors on her behalf. Appellant’s testimony concerning their initial conversation was partially corroborated in several key respects by SR’s trial testimony, including her admission that the conversation took place, that she had “lied” to Appellant by omitting details that presented her in a “bad light,” and that Appellant had assisted her by “squashing” rumors of her secret. (R. at 878, 901-02.)
ment to Appellant was materially different from a re- port that she subsequently
provided to
investigators. The military judge stated:
[E]ven
if [SR] falsely told the accused in confi-
dence that her sexual encounter with
the enlisted man was non-consensual in an effort to suppress rumors, this would have little value in
proving that her official allegations against Cadet Smith resulting in a public trial are also false.
(Appellate Ex. CLIII at 3.)
The military judge then concluded, “[T]he minimal probative value of
this evidence is outweighed by
dan-
ger of unfair prejudice to [SR’s] privacy interests and the potential danger of sidetracking
the member’s [sic] attention to a collateral issue ….” Id.
In a trial on charges
of extortion and coerced sex- ual relations, I do not agree that the defense
intrudes in a collateral matter by making an inquiry into facts that describe
the victim’s fear that her secret
will be revealed.
Proof of the secret’s
existence and the genu- ineness
of SR’s fear of disclosure were key issues in the Government’s case against Appellant, and the defense had a right to explore them,
subject to
carefully tailored
restrictions respecting SR’s privacy.6 Moreover,
6 The military
judge clearly recognized the relevance of the content of
the secret to the extortion and indecent assault offenses, observing, “[I]f
the secret is about something that is completely inconsequential, it makes it less likely that
[SR]
would
have been willing to do something
against her will.”
(R. at 112.)
Ultimately, however, the Government was able to prove both the existence and importance of
the secret through the witness’s layering on of additional conclusory statements.
by focusing on the
confidential versus official nature of SR’s two statements, the military judge overlooked the greater
significance of the defense
proffer. The defense theory was that SR’s ultimate motive in
avoiding disci- pline was revealed in her expectation
that Appellant would place his reputation
on the line and communicate false information to counter rumors
then
in circulation about her secret.7 The defense argued that [568] this same motive was also present
in her complaint against Appellant, and it
seems an artificial distinction to say that the
formality of the
complaint process somehow altered SR’s overriding concern for protecting her ca- reer. Compare United States v. Bahr,
33 M.J. 228, 233 (C.M.A. 1991) (error to exclude evidence
of witness’ prior false statements to classmates that she had been sexually assaulted; evidence was admissible to show witness’ motive to
testify falsely against accused in or- der to call attention
to herself).
The majority largely sidesteps the problems with the M.R.E. 412 order and under its
Article 66(c), Uni- form Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),
authority con- cludes that the instant
case involves non-parallel statements—an earlier
statement to Appellant where avoiding discipline
was a factor in SR’s motivation to lie, and a second statement to
law enforcement investi-
7 There is no dispute that SR did not actively seek out Appel- lant to lie for her concerning her secret. However, after furnishing
Appellant with an allegedly false account of her secret, SR appar- ently did nothing to discourage Appellant from using that informa- tion to counter rumors that were in circulation. In fact, SR’s ap- proval
of Appellant’s efforts to “help her” by suppressing rumors was reflected in her own trial testimony (R. at 901,
922-23, 926), and Appellant’s threatened withholding of that assistance
ulti- mately formed the basis
of the Government’s extortion charge.
else knew about the encounter
and SR had no reason
to fear UCMJ
action. The majority emphatically con- cludes that because SR had no possible motive
to fabri- cate her allegations against Appellant, the earlier
statement was not relevant
and therefore was inadmis-
sible at trial. The flaw in the majority’s
argument is the implicit assumption
that no circumstances other than the actual disclosure of the facts surrounding
the
Chase Hall encounter could have provided SR with the motive to fabricate allegations of sexual assault. In my view, the timing, content, and circumstances
surround- ing SR’s initial report to investigators all point to the making of an intrinsically unreliable statement, and provide
sufficient grounds to question SR’s motives in bringing her allegations against Appellant.
The record reveals
that on 5
December 2005, Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS)
agents inter- viewed Appellant—the other person who
knew of the Chase Hall encounter—as part of a large-scale probe into allegations of his
sexual misconduct at the Coast Guard Academy. SR was not interviewed by
CGIS un- til almost two months later, on 9
February 2006,8 at
which time she discussed
her allegations
against Appel- lant but specifically
refused to address the details of her secret. SR’s
self-censored initial report reveals that she had made the gators where no such motive
existed because nobody
understandable but nevertheless
calculated decision to limit the disclosure of information that could be harmful to her career.9 Such a decision
on
8 The record does
not disclose whether SR voluntarily came forward or was first approached by CGIS.
9 In her signed statement to CGIS dated 15 February 2006, SR also indicated, “A situation occurred, that I do not which [sic]
SR’s part following a considerable opportunity
for re- flection
necessarily
calls into question the completeness and reliability of her contemporaneous
allegations against Appellant. Given the visibility of this dragnet investigation,
the four-month delay between the Chase Hall encounter and SR’s initial report, and her selective and continued withholding of facts that did not reflect favorably
on her, it certainly was possible that SR fab- ricated
or embellished details of her allegation against
Appellant as a preemptive strike to avoid discipline, based on her fear or expectation that the true facts of their encounter, if
not already known by
investigators, likely would
be discovered.10 Accord-[569]ingly,
the two statements were “parallel” not because
anyone else knew the facts, but because of the illegality of the en- counters
and SR’s fear that the true facts could be dis- covered. Whether or not SR actually formed the mo- tive to fabricate allegations
against Appellant was an
to discuss, which led to
rumors
(which were grossly exaggerated).” (Appellate Ex. XVII, Enclosure 13 at 1; Appellate Ex. XXI at 2.)
SR’s clear attempt to downplay the rumors while at the same time refusing to address them indicates, in my mind at
least, a concern for UCMJ or administrative action, if not a desire to deflect official
interest in her own behavior.
10 Given the ongoing CGIS investigation, there certainly would
have been risks to SR in not stepping forward at all.
SR likely had no way of knowing if
Appellant
had already reported their encounter to CGIS agents, leaving the possibility of an unrebutted, potentially
career-threatening allegation of sexual misconduct in the hands of authorities. There also was the risk that Appellant
might decide to cooperate
with authorities and make a
preemptive disclosure at a future time. The argument that the record completely foreclosed the possibility
of fabrication by SR would make more sense if SR had made a prompt and complete report of her allegations against
Appellant at
a time prior to the CGIS investigation.
That did not happen in
this case
issue that that the members should have decided at trial.
Faced with a recalcitrant key witness who refused to testify at the motions hearing, the Government ob- tained
a windfall
through the erroneous application of M.R.E. 412.
At
trial, SR provided conclusory testimony regarding her “bad
situation” and Appellant’s
prior
role in “squashing” career-threatening
rumors,
for the purpose of showing that she was
coerced into unwanted sexual relations after Appellant impliedly threatened to
reveal the truth about her secret.
On cross-examination, the defense was prohibited
from
ad- dressing the facts
of SR’s “bad situation” or “secret,” and similarly was prohibited from eliciting factual testimony that would inform
the members that Appellant’s efforts
to “squash” and “suppress” rumors specifically
meant spreading false information provided by SR, on SR’s behalf.11 The result was that the Government was allowed to portray SR as an innocent victim of an extortionist plot, while the defense was not allowed
to portray the witness
as the architect of a scheme of
false allegations intended to cover up her own misconduct.
I cannot agree that SR’s privacy interest in shielding her alleged false
statements from inquiry was so important that it justified
denying Appellant the opportunity to pierce the veneer of the Government’s
conclusory assertions that were used to
convict him. I disagree with the notion that M.R.E. 412 was intended to allow the Government to prove the corpus delicti of the offenses
through
a witness indulging in euphemisms of
doubtful legal sufficiency, particu-
11 The record of trial is devoid of any facts that would have explained to the members what these words actually meant.
larly when they obscure facts that raise serious questions concerning her
own credibility.12
When
a constitutional violation is shown,
a case
must be reversed unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Israel, 60 M.J. 485, 488 (C.A.A.F. 2005). In deciding whether or not the erroneous exclusion
of evidence is
harmless, the court
must consider “the importance of the witness’ testi-
mony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on materials points, the extent
of
cross-
examination otherwise permitted, and …
the strength of the prosecution’s case.” United
States v. Moss, 63 M.J. 233, 238 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (quoting Bahr, 33 M.J. 228 at 234 (quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 465 U.S. 673, 684
(1986))). At trial,
SR testified that on 19 October 2005, she had discussed her secret with Appellant in
the mail room; that
Appellant had
responded by indicat-
ing he needed “motivation” to keep “helping her” by
continuing to suppress rumors
that were circulating about her; that she had replied
by asking whether by
“motivation” he meant sex—a suggestion she says
12 Certainly there
were less burdensome remedies available to the military judge that could have protected the legitimate pri- vacy interests of the victim in this case. The military judge could have fashioned an order restricting the defense from probing the intimate and personal details of the
secret, focusing instead on the nature of the encounter and the alleged false claim of sexual assault. In addition, the military judge could have closed the proceeding during testimony on the May 2005 incident
to protect the victim from
undue embarrassment or humiliation. The
military judge also could have provided
instructions to the members limit- ing the improper use of the evidence.
made him bristle; that Appellant later appeared in her room in Chase Hall on three separate occasions, where they posed together nude
for a photograph and engaged in
sexual activity; that the sexual encounter had in her mind
provided the “motivation” Appellant needed to continue to suppress her secret; and that al- though she never told Appellant to
stop, she participated only out of fear that he would not keep her secret.
Appellant presented
his case upon his own testimony, stating in substance that while he met SR in the mail room on 19 October,
he never extorted sexual favors from her and denied saying that he needed “motivation”
to continue suppressing rumors about SR’s
se- [570]cret. Appellant testified that they discussed get- ting together to pose for a nude photograph
in her room; that after arriving in her room that evening, he took two digital
photographs of them together,
which he kept for safekeeping; and
that he subsequently re- turned to her room on two additional occasions to ex- change massages and perform consensual oral sodomy. Appellant admitted that SR was “tense” and “stressed” but claimed that the entire sexual encounter with SR was consensual.
(R. at 1325.)
The difficulty accepting Appellant’s account of a consensual encounter
with SR is that it makes little intuitive sense given the lack of any evidence of a relationship
or any rational explanation for its spontaneous nature. In short, Appellant’s testimony
is remarkable in its failure to explain SR’s actions in the absence
of at least some undue influence. In this
failure, however, lies the major flaw in the military judge’s M.R.E. 412 order. Appellant’s account of an almost spontaneous consensual encounter with SR would be difficult
to believe unless the members were informed
of SR’s prior
false claim and were
able
to understand the depths of her concern for protecting her
career. Only if informed of SR’s prior scheme would the members have considered the possibility that her encounter with Appellant in October 2005 resulted not so much from coercion, but rather
from her own calculation that she needed to en- sure his continued cooperation in keeping her prior misconduct secret. Only then would the members have considered the possibility that SR might
have fabricated a false
claim
of sexual assault against Appellant as
a preemptive strike, out of
fear that the encounter would
be discovered through an ongoing investigation.
The erroneous M.R.E. 412 order deprived Appellant of his best defense to the charges
involving SR.
See United States v. Gray, 40 M.J. 77, 80 (C.M.A.
1994) (military
judge
committed reversible error by excluding
evidence of victim’s past sexual behavior under
M.R.E. 412; case came down to a credibility contest be- tween witnesses, and the excluded evidence “could have made [the accused’s] otherwise
incredible expla-
nation believable”); see
also United States v. Williams,
37 M.J. 352, 360
(C.M.A. 1993) (accused’s constitutional right to present evidence of victim’s extramarital affair improperly
excluded under M.R.E. 412;
excluded evidence would have revealed motive to provide false testimony
in order to protect affair, victim was key wit- ness in government’s case,
and evidence of
guilt was not overwhelming).
Here, the Government offered no other
evidence to
support SR’s testimony that her sexual encounter with Appellant, which had many outward indicators of being consensual, actually
resulted from coercion.
The ad- mission of evidence that SR had furnished Appellant with false information which
he then used to counter a career-threatening rumor may well have cast doubt on
the veracity
of SR’s
testimony, and tipped the balance in favor of Appellant’s version
of events. Accordingly, I would find that the error in excluding this evidence was not harmless
beyond a reasonable doubt.
I would affirm
the findings of guilty to sodomy, at- tempted failure to obey a lawful order, and unauthorized absence.
I would set aside the findings of guilty to extortion and indecent assault, and the sentence, and return the case to the Convening Authority for a re- hearing.
For the Court,
Jane R. Lee
Clerk of the Court
Labels: Cadet Webster Smith.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home