Expert witnesses can be a critical part of any court-martial. Service members have a right to confidential experts. See United States v. Turner, 28 M.J. 487, 489 (C.M.A. 1989); United States v. King, 32 M.J. 709 (A.C.M.R. 1991). Under R.C.M. 701 (f), their confidential assistance is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the work product privilege.As a matter of military due process, service members are entitled to investigative or other expert assistance and testimony when necessary for an adequate defense, without regard to indigency. United State v. Garries, 22 M.J. 288 (C.M.A. 1986); United States v. Mustafa, 22 M.J. 165 (C.M.A. 1986); United States v. Toledo, 15 M.J. 255 (C.M.A. 1983).In United States. Gonzalez, 39 M.J. 459, 461 (C.M.A. 1994), the Court of Military Appeals established a three-prong test that the defense must meet in order to show the necessity for expert assistance. Firstly, why the expert assistance is needed. Secondly, what the expert assistance may accomplish for the accused. Thirdly, why the defense counsel is unable to gather and present the evidence that the expert assistance would be able to develop. Id.The defense must submit a request for expert assistance to the convening authority before trial. If it is denied, the defense may have asked the military judge to order the government to provide assistance. US v. Lee, 64 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2007).
Categories
Related Posts
-
US V. CPL Lindsey Scott
Feb 01View ArticleIn 1983, a woman was attacked near the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia. The victim’s description of her assailant prompted the military officers to convict and court-martial Corporal Lindsey Scott, the only black MP in the Quantico Criminal Investigation Division, despite his pleas of innocence. He was initially convicted and sentenced to 30 years in...
-
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Reverses Precedent Holding that Retired Sailors and Marines Can Receive a Punitive Discharge at a Court-Martial
Jun 23View ArticleOn 19 June 2018, in US v. Dinger, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces set aside some previous precedent suggesting that retired members could not receive a punitive discharge at a court-martial.10 U.S.C § 6332 states that when a member in the Naval Service is placed in a retired status, that “transfer is conclusive...
-
Mr. Pristera Argues US V. Cook at the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and New Trials at Issue
Nov 30View ArticleOn November 17, 2016, Mr. Pristera argued the case of United States v. Cook on appeal at the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. The unique appeal presented diametrically opposing positions where Mr. Pristera had to concurrently argue for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence under R.C.M. 1210, and also ineffective assistance...