Insufficiency of the Evidence Lawyers
Appealing Military Court-Martial Convictions
You may have grounds for an appeal of a court-martial ruling if you can prove that there was not sufficient evidence for a conviction.
LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY
Article 66(c), UCMJ, mandates that the lower appellate courts review the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirm only those findings of guilty which this court finds correct in law and in fact. United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987); United States v. Gilchrist, 61 M.J. 785, 793 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2005).
These reviews are done to take a fresh, impartial look at the case and the evidence presented. The decision of the trial court is not considered during this process.
Contact Daniel Conway & Associates to speak with our experienced military court-martial appeals attorneys today.
DETERMINING REASONABLE DOUBT
Criminal defendants can only be convicted if a jury believes the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be noted that reasonable doubt does not mean that the evidence must be free from conflict, just that a jury cannot, in good conscience, proclaim a guilty verdict if the evidence left them doubting a defendant’s guilt.
During the appeals process, the appellate court reviews the record of the trial. Members of the appellate court were not present during the original trial, meaning they did not observe witness testimony or the defendant during the trial. All of their information comes from the records in the court. This can be a good thing in some cases, as the high emotions that arise during trials can sometimes obscure the facts.
When all the information is reviewed, the court has to make a good faith decision regarding whether or not the evidence provided clearly shows that the person filing for appeals is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
