Source: http://www.caaflog.com/2017/05/16/the-army-jag-certifies-a-case-about-article-62/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:49:38+00:00

Document:
Article 62(a)(1)(B), UCMJ, confers upon this court jurisdiction over Government appeals from orders or rulings by a military judge that ” exclude evidence that is substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.” The legislative history of Article 62 and the CAAF’s interpretation of Article 62 establish that Congress intended Article 62 to be applied in the same manner as the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731. United States v. Brooks, 42 M.J. 484, 486 (C.A.A.F. 1995); see also United States v. Lincoln, 42 M.J. 315, 320 (C.A.A.F. 1995). In other words, Article 62, UCMJ, ensures that the Government has the same opportunity to appeal adverse trial rulings that it has in federal civilian criminal proceedings. United States v. Lopez de Victoria, 66 M.J. 67, 71 (C.A.A.F. 2008). To invoke jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3731, the relevant United States Attorney must certify that a federal appeal is taken because the evidence excluded is substantial proof of a material fact. The military justice system includes essentially the same requirement. See R.C.M. 908(b)(3). In addition, the Judge Advocate General’s representative must decide whether to file the appeal. R.C.M. 908(b)(6).
So maybe this is one way to ensure that their is definitive proof of an Accuser’s prior false allegation. All you have to do is get the JAG to certify the question.
Viewing the facts sub judice, we find that the Petitioners have properly alleged that the excluded evidence was substantial proof of a fact material to the proceedings. We are not persuaded by the Respondent’s argument that the evidence was cumulative. In an interlocutory appeal, it is beyond the scope of this Court to speculate as to what weight or importance a particular piece of evidence might have at trial. It is sufficient that the petitioner believes that the evidence is significant enough to seek reversal of a military judge’s exclusionary ruling rather than continue at trial with whatever other evidence that might be available. Accordingly, we hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s [the prosecution’s] appeal.
United States v. Scholz, 19 M.J. 837, 841 (NMCMR 1984) (emphasis added).
Since there’s disagreement between the services on whether the TC’s belief is sufficient for a CCA to have jurisdiction, even precedent that is 25-33 years old, seems ripe for a CAAF decision. I think the age of precedent swings in favor of CAAF siding with TJAG on this one. Doesn’t mean the government will be successful when it returns to ACCA though.

References: § 3731
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3731
 v.