## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201700 216

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appell ant

v.


### ARTEM V. KOKUEV Private ( E

- 1 ), U.S. Marine Corps

Appell ee

_________________________ Review of Government Appeal Pursuant to Article 62(b), UCMJ

Military Judge: Major John L. Ferriter , US MC

. Convening Authority: Command ing General, 3d Marine Aircraft Wing, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar
, San Diego, CA For Appellant: Major Kelli A. O’Neil, USMC; L ieutenant Megan P. Marinos, JAGC, USN For Appellee: Lieutenant Commander Jon T. Taylor , JAGC, USN.

_________________________ Decided 8 November 2017

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , F ULTON , and S AYEGH , Appellate Military Judges

_______________

__________ PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT

_________________________ HUTCHISON, Senior Judge : This case is before us on a government interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 862, and R ULE F OR C OURTS

- M ARTIAL (R.C.M.) 908, M ANUAL F OR C OURTS

- M ARTIAL , U NITED S TATES (2016 ed.). The appellee is charged with wrongful production, distribution, a nd use of 3, 4

- methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)
, assault consummated by battery upon his wife, ZK, and communica ting a threat, in violations of Articles 112a, 128, and 134
, UCMJ
, 10 U.S.C. §§ 912a
, 928 , and 934

.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700216

2 This is the appellee’s second court -martial. At the first court-martial, the appellee was convicted of breaking restriction, willfully violating a lawful order, and wrongfully using cocaine and alprazolam. At that court-martial the appell ee was also charged with three other offenses

— assault consummated by a battery, and wrongfully using and manufacturing 3, 4- methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA). When the government learned that it had erroneously charged the appellee with the use and manufacture of MDA in stead of MDMA, it withdrew and dismissed th ose three charges without prejudice. The corrected MDMA offenses and the previously withdrawn and dismissed assault consummated by a battery have now been referred to this second court-martial. The government argues that the military judge erred by: (1) denying a defense motion to sever the attorney-client relationship between the appellee and his detailed defense counsel; and (2) denying the government ’s request to recall ZK as a witness. After carefully considering the record, the military judge’s findings of essential facts and conclusions of law, and the submissions of the parties, we conclude: (1) that we do not ha ve jurisdiction to review the military judge’s decision to deny severance of the appellee’s detailed defense counsel; and (2) the military judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the government ’s request to recall ZK.

I. B ACKGROUND The appellee is in pretrial confinement and is represented by three counsel: Captain (Capt) RM, Capt JW, and civilian defense counsel (CDC) JS.
In its case- in -chief, the government presented nine exhibits and called eight witnesses, including ZK , who was called to provide evidence about the battery charge. She testified that during a drug-and alcohol-fueled night in the appellee’s barracks room, the appellee hit and pushed her after they got into an argument. The government did not ask ZK any questions about the appellee’s alleged manufacturing, distribution, or use of MDMA. On crossexamination, Capt RM confronted ZK with questions about her own drug use, whether she had used alcohol and drugs on the night of the alleged assault, and her pending divorce from the appellee.

F ollowing ZK’s testimony, the government called its final two witnesses. However, instead of resting, the trial counsel (TC) then requested an Article 39(a), UCMJ, session and informed the military judge (MJ) that he wanted to recall ZK to testify about the appellee ’s use , manufacture, and distribution of MDMA. The TC indicated that he had just learned “ ten minutes ago” that ZK could testify to seeing the appell ee “use and manufacture MDMA, and thatUnited States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

3 she would also see him go meet his friends.” 1 The TC expla ined that following ZK’s testimony he asked ZK’s Victim’s Legal Counsel whether ZK had ever seen the appellee use, manufacture, or distribute MDMA. His inquiry was prompted by a member’s question that the MJ declined to ask ZK, asking
, “before the night in the barracks, had you ever seen your husband do drugs before?” 2 The CDC objected to the TC’s request to recall ZK based on a lack of notice , and because ZK had decline d the defense’s requests for interviews. The MJ initially denied the government’s reques t to recall ZK and asked if the government had any additional evidence to present. The government asked for and was granted an overnight recess to review their evidence and consult with s upervisory counsel regarding recalling ZK.

I n an Article 39(a), UCMJ , session the next day, ZK testified that the appellee use d , manufactur ed , and distrib ut ed MDMA

. She also testified that she had not previously disclosed this information to Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigators or to the prosecutors in either of her husband’s courts

- martial because she had been on good terms with the appellee, he had asked her not to say anything, and she did not want to provide incriminating evidence against him . She had agreed to testify only about the battery charges, in w hich she was the victim, after being subpoenaed

. But after Capt RM cross

- examined her and attacked her credibility, ZK stated she felt “bad about lying anyway, so I’m not sure why I’d protect somebody who doesn’t have any care for me in the world.” 3
Follo wing ZK’s Article 39(a), UCMJ, testimony, the MJ granted the government’s request to recall her to testify prior to resting their case. As a result, the CDC informed the court that they would be requesting two additional witnesses to rebut ZK ’s testimony

. One of the witnesses was CN, a former Marine and former roommate of ZK. The MJ ordered the government to subpoena CN. Capt RM had previously represented CN at CN’s court

- martial. Upon issuance of the subpoena, the CDC moved to sever Capt RM’s attorney

- clie nt relationship with the appellee based on an actual conflict of interest. The appellee opposed severing his attorney

- client relationship with Capt RM. The MJ ordered Capt RM to submit a sealed affidavit 4 explaining the nature of the conflict

. Included wit h Capt RM’s affidavit was an affidavit from the Marine Corps’ Defense Service Organization’s Highly Qualified Expert, KC.

1 Record at 463.

2 Id. at 441; A ppellate Exhibit (A E ) XXIX

.

3 Record at 479.

4 AE L.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

4 In his affidavit, Capt RM explain ed the nature of his conflict with CN , while KC opined in her affidavit that a “personal conflict” ex isted and that it could not be waived . She further stated that she participated in a conference call with Capt RM and Capt RM’s state bar counsel, in which the state bar counsel provided “substantially similar advice” with respect to Capt RM’s conflict of interest. 5 T he court then held two closed ex

- parte hearings with Capt RM

. Following the ex parte hearings, t he MJ concluded that “there is not currently an actual conflict of interest for [Capt RM] in this case” and denied the motion to sever. 6 T he MJ we nt on to reconsider his ruling that ZK could be recalled to testify . He conducted a balancing test pursuant to M ILITARY R ULE OF E VIDENCE (M IL

. R. E VID .) 403, M ANUAL FOR C OURTS

- M ARTIAL , U NITED S TATES (2016 ed.) and found that the circumstances of ZK’s belat ed revelations so undercut ZK’s credibility as to make her testimony “minimally probative,” and that there was “ significant danger of confusion of the issues, undue delay, and wasting of time if the government were permitted to recall [ZK]. ” 7
Based on the information he received in the closed ex

- parte proceedings, the MJ found that recalling ZK would result in an actual conflict of interest for defense counsel, and that this conflict would require Capt RM’s removal from the case. This finding weighed heavi ly in the MJ’s M IL

. R. E VID . 403 analysis. The MJ explained that the case had already experienced delays and resultant scheduling issues arising from the government’s request to recall ZK and that actually recalling her would “ certainly result in further

c onfusion of the issues, more undue delay, and wasting of time.” 8 Addressing the effect of Capt RM’s potential excusal, the MJ noted that Capt RM was the appellee’s original counsel, that he had delivered the opening statement, and that he had “obviously be en very involved” in the appellee’s representation
, that appellee opposed his removal, and that removal of Capt RM from the case would be unfairly prejudicial to the appellee

. 9 The MJ considered several different alternatives to prohibiting the government from recalling ZK, including limiting the scope of her testimony, or the scope of CN’s rebuttal testimony. Ultimately, however, the MJ found

5 Id. at 5.

6 Id. at 629.

7 Id.

8 Id

. The delays associated with the consideration of ZK’s recall had already resulted in the excusal of two court members

.

9 Id. at 629

- 30.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

5 that permitting the government to recall ZK would likely result in an actual conflict of interest for Capt RM, and that he would have to be excused from the case. The MJ found that “[b]ased upon the late notice of this evidence, the attendant delays that would ensue, and the significant negative impact on the accused’s rights to counsel . . . it would be highly and unf airly prejudicial to allow [ZK]’s testimony at this stage of the proceedings .” 10
II. D ISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Article 62 , UCMJ, pre scribes exacting circumstances under which the government may appeal a ruling or order of the military judge :

(a)(1) In a trial by court

- martial in which a military judge presides and in which a punitive discharge may be adjudged, the United States may appeal the following . . . :

. . . . (B) An order or ruling which excludes evidence that is substantial proof of a fact mate rial in the proceeding (emphasis added)

. In defining the scope of our authority under Article 62, UCMJ, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) has explained that “the pertinent inquiry is not whether the court has issued a ruling on admissibility , but instead whether the ruling at issue ‘in substance or in form’ has limited ‘the pool of potential evidence that would be admissible.’” United States v. Wuterich , 67 M.J. 63, 73 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (quoting United States v. Watson, 386 F.3d 304, 313 (1st C ir. 2004) )

. N ot every decision that might have some remote effect on the admissibility of evidence is subject to government appeal pursuant to Article 62, UCMJ. Rather, interlocutory government appeals are restricted “ to those rulings that have a direct ra ther than incidental effect on the exclusion of evidence .” Id. at 75 (emphasis added) (citation omitted) ; see also United States v. Vargas, 74 M.J. 1, 7 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (“Simply put, the question is one of incidental versus direct effect”). Relying on Var

gas , the appellee argues that the MJ’s ruling denying the government’s request to recall ZK was simply a “case management ruling[] intended to protect the rights of an accused and ensure the effective administration of justice,” and therefore, “not reviewa ble under Article 62, UCMJ.” 11 In Vargas , the government sought an overnight continuance to allow their remaining out

- of

- area witnesses to arrive before proceeding with

10 AE LVII at 11.

11 Appellee’s Brief of 14 Sep 2017 at 12.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

6 the remainder of the case

- in

- chief. The MJ denied the request. When the government indic ated they could not proceed without the remaining witnesses, the MJ rested the government’s case. We granted the government’s appeal, finding that the “trial judge’s ruling in denying the brief recess so that witnesses scheduled to be heard the next day co uld testify and then sua sponte resting the Government’s case, had the direct effect of limiting the pool of potential evidence that would be admissible and excluding evidence that was substantial proof of a material fact.” United States v. Vargas , No. 201 300426, 2014 CCA LEXIS 121, at *18 , unpublished
op. (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 28 Feb 2014) (citations and internal quot ation marks omitted). The CAAF reversed, holding that neither ruling by the military judge had the direct effect of ‘ “ excluding evidence ’ as t hat term is used in Article 62, UCMJ. ” United States v. Vargas , 74 M.J. 1, 7 (C.A.A.F

. 2014). Rather, the MJ’s decisions were case management decisions that had only incidental effect on the exclusion of evidence. The MJ’s ruling precluding ZK from testify ing here is readily distinguishable from the MJ’s ruling in Vargas. The CAAF recognized in Vargas that “[t]he military judge did not make any ruling which held that the government’s evidence was inadmissible nor did she indicate that she would not allow th e introduction of properly admissible evidence.” Vargas , 74 M.J.
at 7 . Here, the MJ applied the M IL

. R. E VID . 403 balancing test and determined ZK’s proffered testimony was inadmissible. As a result, the MJ’s decision had the direct effect of excluding ZK’ s testimony that she observ ed the appellee use and manufacture MDMA. We have jurisdiction to decide a government appeal of this ruling. However, t he MJ’s denial of the defense’s motion to excuse Capt RM was not a n order or ruling that excluded evidence. N or was the exclusion of evidence more than incidental to the MJ’s ruling. The MJ’s ruling on the counsel disqualification issue did not address the admissibility of any evidence. Rather, it was a determination on the part of the MJ that

— as the

case stood a t the time of the ruling

— Capt RM’s representation was not affected by an actual conflict of interest.

In United States v. Browers, the Court of Military Appeals considered whether the denial of a continuance requested so that the government could obtain t wo witness es constituted the exclusion of evidence. 20 M.J. 356 (C.M.A. 1986). That court reasoned that “[m]ost lawyers think of exclusion of evidence as a ruling made at or before trial that certain testimony, documentary evidence, or real evidence is ina dmissible. . . . and we see no reason to believe that Congress had any different intention in drafting Article 62(a)(1) .” Id. at 360. Similar to both Vargas and Browers
, the MJ’s determination , here, that Capt RM did not yet have a conflict of interest wasUnited States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

7 not a ruling that excluded evidence. This ruling does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of Article 62(a)(1) , UCMJ

. Nevertheless, the appropriateness of the MJ’s ruling on the defense motion to sever is not entirely irrelevant to our determinatio n of whether the MJ erred by den ying the government’s request to recall ZK. We review a MJ’s ruling to exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Diaz , 69 M.J. 127, 131 (C.A.A.F. 2010). “ A military judge abuses his discretion when his fi ndings of fact are clearly erroneous, the court’s decision is influenced by an erroneous view of the law, or the military judge’s decision on the issue at hand is ou t side the range of choices reasonably arising from the applicable facts and the law. United States v. Miller , 66 M.J. 306, 307 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (citations omitted)

. Thus, to the extent the MJ’s decision to exclude evidence depends on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous view of the law,

we will consider such an error in our determi nation of whether the MJ abused his discretion in excluding evidence.

B. Analysis 1. Standard of review In reviewing an interlocutory appeal by the g overnment , we “ may act only with respect to matters of law [

. ] ” Art. 62(b), UCMJ; R.C.M. 908(c)(2). We are, therefore, “bound by the military judge’ s factual determinations unless they are unsupported by the record or clearly erroneous” and we lack the

“ authority to find facts in addition to tho se found by the military judge.” United States v. Gore , 60 M.J. 178 , 185 (C.A.A.F. 2004). “ W e conduct a de

novo review of [the milita ry judge’ s] conclusions of law.” United States v. Stevenson , 52 M.J. 504, 505 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 1999), rev ’ d on other grounds , 53 M.J. 257 (C.A.A.F. 2000); see also United States v. Green e , 56 M.J. 817, 822 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 2002).

2. Scope of M

IL

. R. E VID . 403

M IL

. R. E VID . 403 states: The military judge may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the members, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence. The appellant argues that the MJ erred in denying the government’s request to recall ZK by misapplying M IL

. R. E VID . 403. Sp ecifically, the government contends that no military case law analyzing M IL

. R. E VID . 403 has concluded that “ potential or actual conflicts of interest involving the rightUnited States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

8 to counsel” satisfy the rule’s prejudice prong. 12 The proper construction of a milita ry rule of evidence is a question of law we review de novo. LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364, 369 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (citing United States v. Matthews, 68 M.J. 29, 35

- 36 (C.A.A.F. 2009); United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67, 73 (C.A.A.F. 2008)). There fore, we must determine , as a matter of law, whether “unfair prejudice” within the context of M IL

. R. E VID

. 403 can include the harm associated with severing an accused’s attorney

client relationship

. The appell ant points out that i n United States v. Colli er, the CAAF concluded that t he term “‘ unfair prejudice ’ in the context of [ M IL

. R. E VID

. ] 403 ‘ speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the factfinder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof s pecific to the offense charged.’” 67 M.J. 347, 354 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (citing Old Chief v. United States , 519 U.S. 172, 180 (1997) ) (emphasis in original)

. The CAAF went on to explain that M IL

. R. E VID . 403 “ addresses prejudice to the integrity of the trial process, not prejudice to a particular party or witness. ” Id. ; but see United States v. Bess, 75 M.J. 70, 77 (C.A.A.F. 2016 ) (citing M IL

. R. E VID . 403 and admonishing courts

- martial to implement procedures for the production of evidence requested by members during deliberations “to ensure that no unfair prejudice is afforded to either party .”) (emphasis added).
Collier and the majority of cases analyzing M IL

. R. E VID . 403’s unfair prejudice prong do so in the context of admitting or excluding otherwise relevant but inflammatory i mpeachment or propensity evidence , or evidence of uncharged misconduct

. 13 Collier and Old Chief, while clearly binding precedent, simply did not contemplate a scenario in which the government would seek to introduce, near the end of trial, newly discovered evidence that has the potential to create a disqualifying conflict of interest for a criminal defendant’s long

- time detailed defense counsel. Although no military appellate court ha s examined the relationship between the admission of relevant evidence and it s potential prejudice to an accused’s attorney

- client relationship
, at least one federal circuit court has. In United States v. Messino
, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals asked

12 Appellant’s Brief of 23 Aug 17 at 23.

13 See e.g. Collier, 67 M.J. at 354

- 55 (holding the MJ erred in exclu ding cross

examination questions regarding the appellant’s homosexual relationship with the government’s main witness); United States v. Reynolds, 29 M.J. 105, 1 11 (C.M.A. 1989) ( e stablishing a three

- part test for admissibility of uncharged misconduct and holding “[i]n order to be admissible, the evidence . . . must be carefully balanced to insure that ‘its probative value’ is not ‘substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice .’”) (quoting M IL

. R. E VID

. 403 ).United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

9 whether a district court may ever exclude relevant testimony to resolve a conflict of interest

. 181 F.3d 826, 829 (7th Cir. 1999)

. The court answered affirmatively, first not ing , that under F EDERAL R ULE OF E VIDENCE ( F ED

. R. E VID .) 403, “district judges are clearly vested with some discretion to exclude evidence.” Id. Next, c iti ng F EDERAL R ULE OF C RIMINAL P ROCEDURE (F ED

. R. C RIM

. P ROC

. ) 44(c) (giving trial judges the discretion to fashion remedies arising from joint representation), and Wheat v. United States
, 486 U.S. 153, 163 (1988) ( permitting trial judges to disqualify attorn eys despite a waiver of conflict), the C ourt observed that district court judges are “given broad discretion to fashion remedies to avoid conflicts of interest.” Messino , 181 F.3d at 830 (citations omitted)

. Given a district court judge ’ s broad discretion to both exclude relevant evidence and to remedy conflicts , the Seventh Circuit concluded that it was appropriate “on rare occasions” for a district court to “exclude evidence to resolve a conflict of interest.” Id. “Without precisely delineating the scope of a district court’s discretion” to exclude relevant to resolve a conflict of interest, the Seventh Circuit noted that a balancing of the kind contemplated in F ED

. R. E VID . 403 was appropriate. Id. Specifically, “the probative value of the evidence must b e weighed against the negative consequences of admitting the evidence.” Id.; see also United States v. Gearhart , 576 F.3d 459, 464 (7th Cir. 2009) (“ [W] e have held that the introduction of evidence that would generate a conflict of interest is subject to

a nalysis under Rule 403 of the F EDERAL R ULES OF E VIDENCE ”) (citing Messino, 181 F.3d at 830 ). Finally, the Seventh Circuit has also recognized that “disqualification of [defense] counsel” implicates matters of constitutional import; specifically in Gearhart
, the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice. See Gearhart, 576 F.3d at 464 ( “ disqualification of a defendant’s counsel of choice can in principle pose a Sixth Amendment problem.” ) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
We find the Seventh Circuit’s rationale persuasive. First, like district court judges, military judges have b road discretion to remedy conflicts of interest. Indeed, the language from F ED

. R. C RIM

. P ROC

. 44(c)

— relied on by the Messino court

— granting d istrict court judges the discretion to remedy conflicts arising from joint representation is nearly identical to t he language of R. C.M. 901(d)(4)(D)
, which governs military judges under similar circumstances. 14 Likewise, military courts have applied Wheat and held that

14 F ED

. R. C RIM

. P ROC

. 44(c)(2) stat es: Court’s Responsibilities in Cases of Joint Representation. The court must promptly inquire about the propriety of joint representation and must personally advise each defendant of the right to the effective assistance of counsel, including separate re presentation. Unless thereUnited States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

10 military judge s have discretion to disqualify counsel when there is “a serious potential for conflict .” United States v. Rhoades , 65 M.J. 393, 397 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)

. Recently, we recognized that “[t]he military judge must be allowed substantial latitude” in addressing conflicts of interest “‘not only in those rare cases where an actual conflict may be demonstrated before trial, but in the more common cases where a potential for conflict exists which may or may not burgeon into an actual conflict as the trial progresses.’” United States v. Betancourt , No. 20150 0400, 2017 CCA LEXIS 386, at *40, unpublished op. (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 6 J u n 2017) (quoting Wheat , 486 U.S. at 163)

. Second, M IL

. R. OF E VID . 403 is identical to its federal counterpart and
, therefore, it too “delineate[s] a zone of discretion within which judges may exclude evidence.” Messino , 181 F.3d at 829

- 30. Finally, much like the appellant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in Gearhart , Private Kokuev , while not threatened with the loss of counsel of choice, does ha ve the statutory “right t o representation by military counsel provided at no expense[.]” Rhoades , 65 M.J. at 394 (citing Art

. 38(b)(3), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 838(b)(3) (20 00 )). Moreover, the fact that the appellee has a second military counsel does not ameliorate the appellee’s potent ial loss of Capt RM, because “continuation of an established attorney

- client relationship is fundamental in the military justice system.” United States v. Baca , 27 M.J. 110, 118 (C. M .A. 1988) (emphasis added) (citing United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J. 86 (C .M.A. 1977) )

. In sum, the same factors present in Messino and Gearhart that led the Seventh Circuit to adopt the F ED

. R

. E VID

. 403 balancing test are present here and we adopt the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning

. 15 Ther efore, we hold that

is good cause to believe that no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the court must take appropriate measures to protect each defendant’s right to counsel. Similarly, R.C.M. 901(d)(4)(D) directs the military judge to: Prompt ly inquire, whenever two or more accused in a joint or common trial are represented by the same detailed or individual military or civilian c ounsel, or by civilian counsel who are associated in the practice of law, with respect to such joint representation and shall personally advise each accused of the right to effective assistance of counsel, including separate representation. Unless it appears that there is good cause to believe no conflict of interest is likely to arise, the military judge shall take ap propriate measures to protect each accused’s right to counsel [.]

15 While not specifically adopting the F ED

. R. E VID

. 403 balancing test, other

c ourts of appeal have “adopted a balancing test when the government seeks toUnited States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

11 in conducting his M IL

. R. E VID . 403 balancing test, the MJ properly considered , as part of his analysis of unfair prejudice, the “negative consequences” that would follow for the appellee and his attorney

- client relationship with Capt RM

. In so holding, we are mindful that the Military Rules of Evidence “should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination. ” 16 A narrow reading of “unfair prejudice” which leaves no room for a n MJ to exclude minimally probative evidence that has the potential to impact an accused’s constitutional right to counsel, does little to promote the development of evidence law
, and endanger s the goal of securing a just result. Of course, even if the prejudice associated with removing counsel from a case is a proper matter for the MJ to have considered in his balancing test, it may still be possible that the MJ abused his discretion in applyi ng M IL

. R. E VID . 403. Therefore, we next examine the MJ’s application of the 403 balancing test to the facts presented here

. 3. Application of M IL

. R. E VID . 403 As we noted previously, the MJ’s decision to deny the government’s request to recall ZK was pr ecipitated by the conflict of interest ZK’s testimony would pose for the appellee’s detailed defense counsel. If that decision was error, then the MJ’s ultimate decision to deny the government’s request to recall ZK would be an abuse of discretion. As a re sult, we first examine the MJ’s ruling denying the defense motion to sever Capt RM’s attorney

- client relationship with the appellee. 17

introduce evidence that would creat e a conflict of interest for the defendant’s attorney.” Gearhart , 576 F.3d at 464 (citations omitted)

. S ee United States v. James, 708 F.2d 40, 45 (2d Cir. 1983) ( “ [I]nterests of the government

. . . and the public weigh more heavily here ” than interests of defendant s in maintaining counsel of choice); United States v. Garcia , 517 F.2d 272, 27 3 (5th Cir. 1975) (“[R]esolution of the problem requires a cautious and sensitive consideration and balancing of individual constitutional protections, public policy and public interest in the administration of justice, and basic concepts of fundamental fairness ” )

.

16 M IL

. R. E VID . 102.

17 As we noted supra , Article 62, UCMJ, does not grant this court jurisdiction to review the MJ’s decision denying severance of the atto rney

- client relationship. Our analysis of that decision is included here solely to determine whether the MJ’s corresponding decision to deny the government’s request to recall ZK

— a ruling that is subject to review under Article 62, UCMJ

— was informed by an erroneous view of the law. Miller , 66 M.J. at 307.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

12 We review a military judge’s decision whether to disqualify a defense counsel based upon a conflict of interest for an abu se of discretion. United States v. Odom , 53 M.J. 526, 531 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 2000) (citing Wheat
, 486 U.S. at 163

- 64 ) . Whether an actual conflict of interest exists is a mixed question of law and fact requiring our de novo review. United States v. Smith
, 44 M.J. 459, 460 ( C.A.A.F. 1996). R.C.M. 505 and 506 discuss circumstances under which an established attorney

- client relationship between an accused and a defense counsel may be severed. Specifically, R.C.M. 506(c) authorizes the excusal of a defense cou nsel “by the military judge upon application for withdrawal by the defense counsel for good cause shown .” This court has recognized that “good cause” includes instances where there is a conflict of interest or breach of ethical duties. See Wuterich v. Unit ed States , No. 200800183, 2011 CCA LEXIS 148, at *6, unpublished op. (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. 25 Aug 2011) (“Counsel may be disqualified if a party

- litigant brings an issue of conflict of interest or breach of ethical duties to the attention of the court.”) (c iting United States v. Humpherys , 57 M.J. 83, 88 (C.A.A.F. 2002)). Judge Advocate General Instruction (JAGINST) 5803.1E, Rule 1.7 governs conflicts of interest for attorneys practicing within the Navy and Marine Corps. Rule 1.7(a) states, in relevant par t: . . . a covered attorney shall not represent a client if the representation of that client involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the covered attorney’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the covered atto rney. 18 Without revealing the facts or analysis giving rise to Capt RM’s potential conflict of interest

— which remain under seal

— we conclude , following our de

novo review, that no actual conflict of interest currently exists between Capt RM and CN

. In reachi ng his findings of fact, t he MJ examined exte nsively both Capt RM and Ms. KC
, considered their affidavits, and correctly analyzed the rules of professional conduct. T he MJ’s findings of fact establish that Capt RM’s attorney

- client relationship with CN had ceased and that Capt RM believed, after discussion with his super visory counsel, KC, and his state bar, that no actual conflict would exist if ZK was not recalled to testify. We find that military judge’s findings of fact are supported by the record and n ot clearly erroneous. Rhoades , 65 M.J. at 397

. Accordingly, we concur with the MJ’s conclu sion that the potential conflict had not ripened into an actual

18 JAGINST 5803.1E ( 20 Jan 2015 ) at 35.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

13 conflict of interest. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion in the MJ’s decision to deny the de fense motion to sever Capt RM’s attorney

- client relationship with the appellee. See United States v. Barnes , 63 M.J. 563, 566 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (“ Severing an attorney

- client relationship because of something that might happen in the future is gene rally not a good idea.”) (citing United States v

. Smith , 35 M.J. 138, 141 (C.M.A. 1992)). Turning finally to the MJ’s denial of the government’s request to recall ZK, w e review a military judge’s decision to exclude evidence for an abuse of discretion. Un ited States v. Diaz , 69 M.J. 127, 131 (C.A.A.F. 2010). “The abuse of discretion standard is a strict one, calling for more than a mere difference of opinion. The challenged action must be ‘arbitrary, fanciful, clearly unreasonable, or clearly erroneous.’” United States v. Lloyd , 69 M.J. 95, 99 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (quoting United States v. McElhaney , 54 M.J. 120, 130 (C.A.A.F. 2000)). Therefore, a military judge has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and a decision to admit or exclude evidence based on M IL

. R. E VID

. 403 is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Smith , 52 M.J. 337, 344 (C.A.A.F. 2000). Appellate courts give a military judge “more deference if [he ] properly conducts the balancing test and articul ates [his] reasoning on the record .” United States v. Carter , 74 M.J. 204, 207 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (citation omitted) ; see also United States v. Flesher
, 73 M.J. 303, 312 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (“[W]here the military judge places on the record his analysis and applic ation of the law to the facts, deference is clearly warranted” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) ) . Therefore, a military judge who conducted a proper balancing test under M IL

. R. E VID . 403 will not be overturned absent a clear abuse of discr etion. United States v. Stephens , 67 M.J. 233, 235 (C.A.A.F. 2009). Here, the MJ placed his M IL

. R. E VID

. 403 analysis on the record ; we therefore accord him appropriate deference. First, the MJ determined that the evidence sought to be introduced by the government

— ZK’s testimony

— was “minimally probative based upon the circumstances of when she disclosed the information

. . . and the anticipated cross

- examination ” by the defense

. 19 The cross

- examination would almost certainly focus on the fact that ZK had n ot previously disclosed , when asked, any knowledge of the appellee’s involvement with MDMA and only brought up this new evidence after having her credibility attacked on the witness stand. The MJ correctly pointed out that “prior to learning of this potent ial testimony 10 minutes before they were otherwise planning to rest, the [g]overnment had presented what it otherwise deemed to be the best case it had available to them after

19 Record at 629.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

14 more than a year of investigation and months of preparation for trial.” 20 As a

r esult
, the MJ concluded that when assessed within the context of the rest of the government’s case, the “net gain” from the inclusion of ZK’s testimony to the government’s “overall presentation of evidence [would] be minimal.” 21 Conversely, the MJ found t hat if he permitted ZK to be recalled, Capt RM would have an actual conflict of interest and “would likely need to be excused from further representation of the accused.” 22 The MJ noted that Capt RM was the appellee’s primary military defense counsel, the l ongest tenured of the appellee’s counsel, and had made significant contributions to the defense’s preparation and presentation of the case. Specifically, Capt RM delivered the defense’s opening statement to the members and conducted the

cross

- examination o f ZK during her initial testimony. The MJ concluded that recalling ZK, and thereby requiring the excusal of Capt RM , would “significantly prejudice” the appellee.
As we noted supra, i n conducting his M IL

. R. E VID

. 403 balancing the MJ considered a range o f alternatives to prohibiting the government from recalling ZK

. However, the MJ concluded that limiting the scope of either ZK’s testimony or CN’s rebuttal testimony would only “ lead to more uncertainty regarding the possible manner[] in which the remainde r of the . . . trial could play out; many of which would continue to implicate a[n]

. . . actual conflict of interest for [Capt RM].” 23 The appellant argues that even applying the Seventh Circuit’ s 403 balancing test, the MJ still abused his discretion by denying the request to recall ZK. The appellant correctly points out that in Messino
, after first finding district courts can consider the prejudice to an accused’s right to counsel in conducting their 403 analysis , that court, nonetheless, found the distr ict court judge abused his discretion in excluding relevant witness testimony despite the “serious conflict of interest issues” such testimony would present for the accused’s defense counsel. Messino , 181 F.3d at 828. The Seven th Circuit held that it was “ undisputed” that the excluded witness’s testimony “would be highly probative .” Id. at 830. Conversely, the court found that the prejudice to the accused of a possibly “less effective,” but adequate

20 AE LVII at 10.

21 Id. We acknowledge that in forming his conclusion regarding the relative strength of the evidence
, the MJ was able to observe ZK and hear her proffered testimony during the Article 39(a), UCMJ , session

.

22 Record at 629

- 30.

23 Id. at 629.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

15 representation, was “regrettable” and an “inconvenience” b ut did not outweigh the probative value of the witness’s testimony. Id. at 831. There are stark differences, however
, between the facts of Messino and the case before us. Most importantly, in Messino the government’s interlocutory appeal challenged a pretr ial order that excluded a witness’s testimony. Although, presumably, Messino’s attorney had done considerable pretrial work on behalf of his client, the trial had not yet started . T he prejudice resulting from disqualif ication of counsel at that early stage is markedly different than disqualification a f ter members have been empaneled and the government has presented nearly the entirety of its case

- in

- chief. The fact that Capt RM ha d already made significant contributions to the appellee’s defense during the trial distinguishes this case from Messino

. 24 Having concluded that the MJ did not labor under an erroneous view of the law regarding the scope of “unfair prejudice
, ” and recognizing that the MJ “has a range of choices and will not be reversed so long as t he decision remains within that range,” Gore
, 60 M.J. at 187, we hold that the MJ’s ruling denying the government’s request to recall ZK was not beyond the range of reasonable decisions , and that he did not, therefore
, abuse his discretion. Even assuming the MJ, and by extension this court, erred in extending the Seventh Circuit’s 403 analysis of “unfair prejudice” to include the harm associated with severing an accused’s attorney

- client relationship , we would still deny the government’s appeal. T he MJ als o concluded that the probative value of ZK’s testimony was substantially outweighed by the dangers of undue delay and wasting time. The MJ noted the issues caused by the delays to date

— including the loss of two members

— and concluded that permitting the gov ernment to recall ZK “would lead to an unquantifiable number of subsequent delays to the proceedings that could last for significant, unpredictable, and unknown periods of time.” 25 Indeed, ZK had already testified at length and the government had prepared i ts case for over a year. Permitting the government to recall ZK based upon new

- found information near the close of the government’s case would necessarily put the appellee in the undesirable position of either seek ing a continuance in order to interview ZK and prepare cross

- examination on her new testimony

— thereby extending

24 We also note during the appeal of Gearhart’s conviction, the Seventh Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling that disqualified a defense counsel after conducting a F ED

. R. E VID . 403 balancing test. Gearhart , 576 F.3d at 463

- 65. Like Messino , the district court judge’s ruling (in this case disqualifying counsel) occurred prior to the beginning of trial, before any evidence was presented.

25 AE LVII at 9 (citation omitted)

.United States v. Kokuev
, 201700 216

16 his lengthy pretrial confinement

— or to forego such preparation to hasten the conclusion of his trial. Finally, the MJ appropriately concluded that recalling ZK would very likely require additional litigation surrounding Capt RM’s continued representation of the appellee , which would further delay the proceedings. Therefore, we also conclude that the MJ did not abuse his discretion in determining that the probative value of ZK’s testimony was substantially outweighed by the dangers of undue delay and wasting time.

III. C ONCLUSION The appeal is denied. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate G eneral for transmittal to the convening authority. Judge FULTON and Judge SAYEGH concur. For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court