Thompson gives leeway to military law enforcement to not gather certain statements for tactical reasons. In Thompson, the underage victim had trouble remembering all of her interactions with the accused, so she wrote them down on a timeline. The interviewing CID agent deliberately did not gather this writing. The victim eventually lost it. After her trial testimony, defense counsel moved to strike under R.C.M. 914 because the government could not produce the timeline. The trial judge denied the motion, as did the ACCA. R.C.M. 914 implements the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requiring that, upon motion, a pertinent statement of a witness that is in the government's possession be disclosed after his or her testimony. Thompson argued to C.A.A.F. that the government constructively possessed the statement because CID had access to it and "consciously avoided collecting it." C.A.A.F. had not previously considered this constructive possession argument. The Court was unconvinced, ruling that there was no R.C.M. 914 violation because the written statement was never in the possession of the United States. Chief Judge Ohlson concurred in the result because the statement was not lost in bad faith. But he disagreed that the statement was not in the government's possession since it had been offered to government agents and pertained to the witnesses' testimony. See generally United States v. Stellato, 74 M.J. 473 (C.A.A.F. 2015); United States v. Muwwakkil, 74 M.J. 187 (C.A.A.F. 2015). Chief Judge Ohlson's "grave concern" is that the majority approach will incentivize government agents "to avoid the consequences of R.C.M. 914’s clear language and intent simply by [purposely] failing to take adequate steps to preserve statements." Muwwakkil, 74 MJ at 192. As stated in Appellant’s brief, a holding such as the majority’s will "encourage law enforcement personnel to intentionally avoid collecting relevant evidence for fear it might not fit the government’s theory of the case and [then] they [will] have to disclose [any exculpatory] evidence to the defense." Frank Rosenblatt
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
8/11/2021 12:18:28 pm
Does the CID not have a duty to fully and fairly investigate; do they not have a duty to gather relevant material that in all likelihood possesses evidentiary value; and why does this not - under these circumstances - rise to the level of Obstructing Justice under Art. 131b?
Jamar Green
8/11/2021 01:41:08 pm
RCM 914 is found under Chapter 9, Trial Proceedings and the text of the rule identifies the timing as “on direct examination.” The rules of statutory construction indicate that possession must be during this period whether constructive or actual. Thus, what the CID agents could have obtained prior to this moment—trial proceedings and direct examination of a witness—should not be implicated by this rule.
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
8/12/2021 10:15:43 am
Coming from a career prosecutor and current VLC, your response is understandable -- to an extent. The issue was/is NOT "timing," but rather one of Due Process. Your response suggests, if not advocates, that prosecutors have no constitutional or ethical duties as "ministers of justice" to ensure fundamental fairness, i.e., that criminal investigations be conducted fully and fairly, not just to "build a case" against someone their tunnel vision suggests is the guilty culprit. 8/14/2021 08:17:48 am
CAAF briefs are available in this case and any case when there is oral argument. 8/14/2021 08:23:22 am
https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/briefs/2020Term/Thompson210111AppelleeBrief.pdf
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
8/14/2021 03:08:03 pm
Thanks Phil. And our friends up North in the Canadian Forces are dealing with a similar issue . . . . lost (allegedly) spiked "cupcake wrappers! Comments are closed.
|
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|