Task: Text Completion
Input (English): challenging the convening authority’s denial of a government-funded forensic psychologist, failed, after the Government subsequently presented rebuttal testimony of a forensic psychiatrist, to revisit the earlier ruling or take some other action. A trial is fundamentally unfair where the government’s conduct is “so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.” United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 431-32, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973) (citation omitted). Appellant did not object to the testimony or qualifications of the Government’s rebuttal expert, and we therefore review the military judge’s failure to act for plain error. See United States v. Powell, 49 M.J. 460, 463-65 (C.A.A.F.1998) (<HOLDING>). As a threshold matter we note that Appellant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review (B) recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings (C) holding that failure to object at trial should cause this court to review solely for plain error ie error that is clear or obvious and materially prejudicial to an appellants substantial rights (D) holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious (E) holding that a trial court does not commit plain error unless the error is clear under current law
Output (English): (C)