Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/appeals/post-trial-sessions-article-39-ucmj-rcm-905-1102/staff-judge-advocates-addendum.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 15:01:49+00:00

Document:
Must address allegations of legal error. Rationale not required; “I have consideredthe defense allegation of legal error regarding. I disagree that this was legal error. In my opinion, no corrective action is necessary.” See also United States v. McKinley , 48 M.J. 280, 281 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (Judge Cox’s interpretation of RCM 1106(d)(4) and how to respond to an allegation of legal error).
See United States v. Keck , 22 M.J. 755 (N.M.C.M.R. 1986). See also United States v. Broussard , 35 M.J. 665 (A.C.M.R. 1992) (addendum stating “I have carefully considered the enclosed matters and, in my opinion, corrective action with respect to the findings and sentence is not warranted” was an adequate statement of disagreement with the assertions of accused). Need not give rationale or analysis – mere disagreement and comment on the need for corrective action sufficient.
United States v. Welker , 44 M.J. 85 (C.A.A.F. 1996). Although error for SJA not to respond to defense assertions of legal errors made in post-trial submissions, the CAAF looked to record and determined there was no merit to the allegation of error raised by the defense in the RCM 1105/6 submissions. Consequently, the court held that there was no prejudice to the accused by the SJA’s failure to comment on the allegation of error raised by the defense. The court also reaffirmed the principle that a statement of agreement or disagreement, without statement of rationale, is OK. Court will test for prejudice. When (as here) the court finds no trial error, it will find no prejudice. See also United States v. Jones , 44 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (comments on preparation of ROT were “trivial”); United States v. Hutchison , 56 M.J. 756 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2002).
United States v. Sojfer , 44 M.J. 603 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1996). Seven page addendum recited alleged errors and said, “‘ My recommendation remains unchanged: I recommend that you take action to approve the sentence as adjudged ’ . . . He [SJA] made no other comment regarding the merit of the assigned errors.” Id . at 611. Government argued that “only inference . . . is that the [SJA] disagreed with all of the errors that were raised. We agree.” Id .
United States v. Zimmer , 56 M.J. 869 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). It was error for SJA not to respond to allegation of error regarding improper deferment denial.
Ambiguous, unclear defense submission. If the submission arguably alleges a legalerror in the trial, the SJA must respond under RCM 1106 and state whether corrective action is needed.
United States v. Williams-Oatman , 38 M.J. 602 (A.C.M.R. 1993). “Consideration of inadmissible evidence” is sufficient allegation of legal error.
United States v. Hutchison , 56 M.J. 756 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2002). Unsupported claim of onerous and illegal pretrial punishment which was not raised at trial after specific Article 13 inquiry by MJ and raised for the first time in clemency submission does NOT allege legal error requiring comment by the SJA. Likewise, alleged undue, non-prejudicial post-trial delay does not raise an allegation of legal error requiring comment by the SJA.
RCM 1106(f)(7). Addenda containing “new matter” must be served on the defense.
United States v. Leal , 44 M.J. 235 (C.A.A.F. 1996). If the additional information is not part of the record, i.e. , transcript, consider it to be new matter. Not enough that the information is contained “between the blue covers,” because that would permit government to highlight and smuggle to CA evidence offered but not admitted. Here, the addendum referred to a letter of reprimand; the failure to serve the addendum required a new PTR and action by a new CA. But see United States v. Brown , 54 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2000). New action not required where defense, on appeal, fails to proffer a possible response to the un- served addendum that “could have produced a different result.” Id . at 293.
United States v. Cook , 43 M.J. 829 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 1996), aff’d , 46 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 1997). In two post-trial memos, the SJA advised the CA about the MJ’s qualifications and experience, the likelihood of the accused waiving an administrative separation board, and minimizing effects of BCD. The AFCCA disapproved the BCD because all of this was obviously outside the record and should have been served on accused with opportunity to comment.
United States v. Harris , 43 M.J. 652 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1995). Addendum mentioned for the first time that the accused had received three prior Article 15s; new review and action required.
United States v. Sliney , No. 9400011 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 1995) (unpublished). The inclusion of letters from victim and victim-witness liaison required re-service; new action required. Accord United States v. Haire , 40 M.J. 530 (C.G.C.M.R. 1994).
United States v. Heirs , 29 M.J. 68 (C.M.A. 1989). The SJA erred by erroneously advising the CA in the addendum that Heirs’ admissions during the rejected providence inquiry could be used to support the findings of guilty once the accused challenged the sufficiency of the evidence post-trial.
United States v. Jones , 44 M.J. 242 (C.A.A.F. 1996). Addendum explained post-trial delays and an Air Force Appellate Defense Division Air Force Regulation on the Return to Duty Program (RDP). The CAAF held this information to be new matter under R.C.M. 1106(f)(7). However, error was harmless since many of the reasons for the delay were in the Record of Trial, and the contents of the regulation were clearly known to the defense since the defense asked for entry into the RDP.
United States v. Catalani , 46 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 1997). The addendum stated, “All of the matters submitted for your consideration in extenuation and mitigation were offered by the defense at trial; and the seniormost military judge in the Pacific imposed a sentence that, in my opinion, was both fair and proportionate to the offense committed.” This was held to be new matter under R.C.M. 1106(f)(7). The case was returned for submission to a different convening authority for action.
Addendum should remind CA of the requirement to review the accused’s post-trialsubmissions. United States v. Pelletier , 31 M.J. 501 (A.F.C.M.R. 1990); United States v. Ericson , 37 M.J. 1011 (A.C.M.R. 1993).
United States v. Taylor , 67 M.J. 578 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2008). In her clemency submissions to the convening authority, the appellant asked to enter the Return-To-Duty Program (RTDP). The addendum made no mention of this request, nor did it advise the convening authority of his options regarding the RTDP. The addendum did specifically list the appellant’s submissions and advised the convening authority that he had to consider them prior to taking action. No error.
Who should sign the addendum? The SJA.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.