Case Name: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Bradley K. RHODES, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-19
Citations: 61 M.J. 445
Docket Number: No. 04-0336; Crim.App. No. 34697
Parties: UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Bradley K. RHODES, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Military Justice Reporter
Volume: 61
Pages: 445–459

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Bradley K. RHODES, Staff Sergeant, U.S. Air Force, Appellant.
No. 04-0336.
Crim.App. No. 34697.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Argued Feb. 25, 2005.
Decided Sept. 19, 2005.
GIERKE, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which EFFRON and BAKER, JJ., joined. CRAWFORD and ERDMANN, JJ., each filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
For Appellant: Major Andrew S. Williams (argued); Colonel Carlos L. McDade, Major Terry L. McElyea, and Major James M. Winner (on brief); Colonel Beverly B. Knott, and Major Antony B. Ko-lenc.
For Appellee: Captain C. Taylor Smith (argued); Lieutenant Colonel Gary F. Spencer, Lieutenant Colonel Robert V Combs, and Major John C. Johnson (on brief); Colonel LeEllen Coacher.

Opinion:
Chief Judge GIERKE
delivered the opinion of the Court.
INTRODUCTION
Senior Airman (SrA) John Daugherty made a confession that implicated both himself and Appellant in drug offenses. About five months after confessing, SrA Daugherty spoke to Appellant and Appellant's defense counsel, then signed an affidavit claiming he no longer remembered Appellant's involvement in the offenses. He testified at Appellant's trial and was subject to cross-examination, but continued to claim a lack of memory. This appeal concerns whether the admission of his confession violated Appellant's confrontation rights or the bar against hearsay evidence. We hold that Appellant's confrontation rights were satisfied because SrA Daugherty took the stand and was subject to cross-examination. We also hold that his confession was properly admitted under the hearsay exception for statements against interest. But we reverse the affected findings and the sentence because the military judge erroneously allowed the Government to suggest that Appellant was at fault for SrA Daugherty's memory loss.
BACKGROUND
At his court-martial, Appellant entered mixed pleas. The charges and specifications at issue in this appeal alleged violations of Article 112a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 912a by using and possessing psiloeyn and introducing it onto a military base. Appellant pleaded not guilty to these offenses. A general court-martial panel found Appellant guilty of the specifications alleging use and possession. The members found Appellant not guilty of the introduction specification. The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the court-martial's results in an unpublished opinion. We granted review to determine whether a Government witness's pretrial statement implicating Appellant was properly admitted into evidence and whether uncharged misconduct evidence was erroneously admitted.
As the Air Force Court observed, "This case arose from an investigation of drug abuse at Yokota Air Base, Japan, involving several military members." SrA Daugherty was interrogated by the Air Force Office of Special Investigation (OSI) agent as part of that investigation. He made a five-page handwritten confession that admitted using illegal drugs, including psiloeyn, which is "a hallucinogenic contained in a particular kind of dried mushroom that is a Schedule I controlled substance." In the confession, SrA Daugherty described buying ten bags of "mushrooms." He wrote that "[a] guy named Brad was with me." SrA Daugherty later identified "Brad" as Appellant. The confession stated that "Brad" and his girlfriend took three of the bags, ate about half of one bag, and kept the rest.
SrA Daugherty later testified that the following events occurred four-and-a-half months after his confession. Appellant approached him in SrA Daugherty's quarters and asked SrA Daugherty to speak with his defense counsel. SrA Daugherty testified that when he asked why, Appellant replied that he could not tell him. SrA Daugherty also testified that Appellant neither suggested he should forget what happened nor asked him to lie. Appellant gave SrA Daugherty the area defense counsel's telephone number. SrA Daugherty called and spoke to the area defense counsel over the telephone. SrA Daugherty later went to the defense counsel's office, unaccompanied by Appellant. At the defense counsel's office, SrA Daugherty signed an affidavit claiming that he no longer remembered the details of the mushroom purchase. The affidavit specifically stated, "It was likely that Brad never did go with me" to purchase mushrooms. SrA Daugherty testified that no defense counsel stated or implied that he should not tell the truth. SrA Daugherty also testified that he and Appellant never discussed the affidavit after he executed it.
To place the events in their temporal order, we note that Appellant's alleged psilocyn use and possession occurred around December 1999 to January 2000. SrA Daugherty confessed on July 21,2000. SrA Daugherty's affidavit claiming that he no longer remembered Appellant's involvement in the offenses was dated December 6, 2000. Appellant's court-martial then occurred in late March and early April of 2001.
At trial, the Government filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling on the admissibility of SrA Daugherty's confession. The defense also filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude any evidence suggesting that Appellant "was charged with or otherwise suspected of obstructing justice in regards to . SrA John Daugherty."
During a hearing on the motions, both SrA Daugherty and the OSI agent who interrogated him testified. SrA Daugherty stated that he was "sure" he was telling the truth when he confessed, but he claimed to "have forgotten" most of the events that his confession describes. He also testified that he no longer remembered whether Appellant went with him to purchase the mushrooms. The military judge summarized SrA Daugherty's testimony with the observation that while he remembered some of his own misconduct, he claimed to no longer "remember any drug use or involvement that could be attributable" to Appellant.
When the military judge asked SrA Daugherty what he thought the consequences of his confession would be, his immediate response was "Leavenworth." He later explained that he thought there was a "very good possibility" that he would be confined as a result of his confession.
The military judge made what the Air Force Court aptly called "extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law." He ruled that SrA Daugherty's confession was admissible under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 804(b)(3) as a statement against interest, but attached five conditions to the Government's use of the evidence. First, the military judge required that if the Government introduced the statement, it must also introduce SrA Daugherty's affidavit claiming a lack of memory and the possibility that Appellant had not accompanied him when SrA Daugherty purchased mushrooms. Second, the Government was required to introduce the declaration during SrA Daugherty's testimony. Third, the military judge precluded the Government from introducing any statements SrA Daugherty made during his interrogation other than those in his hand written confession. Fourth, the military judge gave the defense the discretion to question either SrA Daugherty or the Air Force OSI agent who took his confession about the interrogation. And fifth, if the defense were to introduce any part of the interrogation into evidence, the Government would be permitted to introduce the remainder.
The military judge also denied the defense's motion to preclude evidence suggesting that Appellant had obstructed justice by asking SrA Daugherty to change his testimony. The military judge applied the three-part test established by United States v. Reynolds to determine the evidence's admissibility under M.R.E. 404(b). The military judge first found that there was adequate circumstantial evidence to allow the members to reasonably find that Appellant sought to influence SrA Daugherty's testimony. The military judge also found that any attempt by Appellant to influence SrA Daugherty's testimony was relevant because it exhibited consciousness of guilt concerning the mushroom incident. Finally, the military judge determined that the evidence's probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This conclusion was based, in part, on the military judge's decision to give a tailored instruction informing the members that an accused has a right to assist in his own defense and that "there is nothing improper per se in an accused meeting with potential witnesses and arranging meetings for them with his lawyer."
During his opening statement, the trial counsel discussed SrA Daugherty's claimed inability to remember Appellant's involvement in the offenses. The trial counsel told the members that "the accused asked Airman Daugherty to go see his lawyer. You're going to hear that within hours, Airman Daugherty lost his memory." The trial counsel contended that while "Airman Daugherty will tell you that his loss of memory of all these incidents has nothing to do with the visit of the accused[,][t]he evidence will demonstrate differently. The evidence will prove that the accused encouraged in some fashion Airman Daugherty to forget this evidence." The trial counsel told the members that "[tjhis is consciousness of guilt."
SrA Daugherty testified during the Government's case. SrA Daugherty "identified his hand-written confession and testified that he gave the statement under oath." But he testified "that he could no longer remember the incidents in question. Significantly, however, he testified that he was sure the contents of his confession were true at the time he made them." He also stated that his memory would have been better when he made the statement than it was at trial. SrA Daugherty "also admitted that he went out socially with the appellant on Christmas Eve, a few weeks after making the affidavit declaring his lack of recall." The Government also "introduced into evidence SrA Daugherty's written confession and his affidavit professing a lack of memory." The trial defense counsel then "cross-examined SrA Daugherty at length." During this cross-examination, the defense counsel "attacked SrA Daugherty's ability to perceive and recall, his prior drug use, his bias, and his motivation for making the statement. SrA Daugherty continued to assert that he could not remember the details of the events, but that he did not lie in his statement to investigators."
Before counsel made their closing arguments, the military judge instructed the members concerning the "[ejvidence that the accused may have contributed to Senior Airman Daugherty's lack of present memory." He told the members that this evidence "may be considered by you for the limited purpose of its tendency, if any, to show the accused's awareness of his guilt of the psilocyn allegations." The military judge then cautioned the members that:
[A]n accused has a right to assist in his own defense. This right includes the ability to assist his counsel in securing evidence and witnesses for use in the defense of the case. An accused may also interview witnesses and request that witnesses meet with the defense counsel. In sum, there is nothing improper per se in an accused meeting with potential witnesses and arranging meetings for them with his lawyer.
If you find that the accused did indeed influence Senior Airman Daugherty, you may not consider this evidence for any other purpose and you may not conclude from this evidence that the accused is a bad person or has criminal tendencies and that he, therefore, committed the offenses charged.
During his closing argument, the trial counsel referred to Appellant's "sham visit" to SrA Daugherty. The trial counsel elaborated:
[T]he accused went on a personal visit here to meet with Airman Daugherty. And, inexplicably within hours of that meeting, within hours of that personal and up close invitation to go see his lawyer, Airman Daugherty's memory goes poof and disappears. Members, I don't know how to state the obvious any more clearly, but this unscrupulously, unusual visit. This preposterous memory loss could not be anymore indicative of the accused's statement, an approach of, "I just wish we could have stuck together better." Airman Daugherty and the accused came to an agreement of some sort, of some fashion; we may never know. But, there's an agreement here somewhere to hang together or, as they say, hang separately _ Airman Daugherty, it was very clear, he is lying through his teeth on this alleged memory loss.
As previously noted, the members ultimately found Appellant guilty of the use and possession of psilocyn.
DISCUSSION
A. Confrontation
The first issue before us is whether the admission of SrA Daugherty's statement violated Appellant's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." It did not because SrA Daugherty took the stand, testified, and was subject to cross-examination, thereby satisfying Appellant's confrontation right.
This issue is controlled by the Supreme Court's opinion in United States v. Owens. In Owens, the Supreme Court held that the Confrontation Clause guarantees only "an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish." The Supreme Court observed that the "opportunity" for cross-examination "is not denied when a witness testifies as to his current belief but is unable to recollect the reason for that belief." Rather, "[i]t is sufficient that the defendant has the opportunity to bring out such matters as the witness' bias, his lack of care and attentiveness, his poor eyesight, and even (what is often a prime objective of cross-examination) the very fact that he has a bad memory." The Court reasoned:
If the ability to inquire into these matters suffices to establish the constitutionally requisite opportunity for cross-examination when a witness testifies as to his current belief, the basis for which he cannot recall, we see no reason why it should not suffice when the witness' past belief is introduced and he is unable to recollect the reason for that past belief.
The Court added that "[t]he weapons available to impugn the witness' statement when memory loss is asserted will of course not always achieve success, but successful cross-examination is not the constitutional guarantee. They are, however, realistic weapons "
The Supreme Court's later decision in Crawford v. Washington is consistent with the Owens holding. In Crawford, the Supreme Court reiterated that "when the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraint at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements."
The defense seeks to rely on a statement in footnote 9 of the Crawford opinion that the Confrontation Clause "does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it." Contrary to Appellant's argument, footnote 9 of Crawford did not sub silentio overrule Owens by using the phrase "to defend or explain it." As Owens makes clear, the de-clarant's explanation may be that he or she has no recollection of the underlying event, and the defense can meaningfully confront a witness who claims such a lack of memory.
Several courts have held that Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Crawford did not overrule Justice Scalia's opinion for the Court in Owens. We agree. Because SrA Daugherty testified in this case and was cross-examined by the defense counsel, there was no Confrontation Clause violation.
B. Statement Against Interest
Having determined that the admission of SrA Daugherty's statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause, we must now determine whether it was properly admitted under the hearsay exception for statements against interest.
It seems counterintuitive that a witness who professes no memory of an event described in an earlier statement is available for confrontation purposes but unavailable for hearsay purposes. Yet that is the law. M.R.E. 804 provides certain hearsay exceptions where the declarant is unavailable. That rule expressly defines "unavailability" to include situations where the declarant "testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement." So SrA Daugherty was "unavailable" for purposes of M.R.E. 804(b)(3). That rule permits the admission of a "statement against interest," which includes a statement that "so far tended to subject the declarant to . criminal liability . that a reasonable person in the position of the declarant would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true."
As the Air Force Court correctly observed, "The rule 'is founded on the commonsense notion that reasonable people, even reasonable people who are not especially honest, tend not to make self-inculpatory statements unless they believe them to be true.' " But courts must be cautious when considering statements offered under this hearsay exception. "Only those statements that are truly self-inculpatory are admissible under this rule. Statements that are not self-inculpato-ry are not admissible, even if they are included 'within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory.' " As the United States 001114; of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has observed, "Portions of inculpatory statements that pose no risk to the declar-ants are not particularly reliable; they are just garden variety hearsay."
The Supreme Court has stressed that "whether a statement is self-inculpatory or not can only be determined by viewing it in context." So the admissibility of a statement against interest must be evaluated "in light of all the surrounding circumstances."
We agree with the Air Force Court's well-reasoned conclusion that under the circumstances of this case, the portions of SrA Daugherty's confession that implicated Appellant were self-inculpatory. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion in Williamson, "a declarant's statement is not magically transformed from a statement against penal interest into one that is inadmissible merely because the declarant names another person or implicates a possible codefen-dant."
The portions of SrA Daugherty's confession in which he admitted buying psilocyn mushrooms, taking them onto base, using them, and providing them to others were clearly self-incriminatory. SrA Daugherty also implicated himself in the portions of his confession discussing Appellant's misconduct. As the Air Force Court concluded, the confession's "references to 'Brad' (the appellant) and his girlfriend were . self-inculpatory" for five reasons. First, "they would lead investigators to other witnesses to the crimes, necessary for corroboration of the confession." Second, SrA Daugherty "knew that his friends were under investigation before making the statement, thus he would know that statements admitting his connection with them would link him to their crimes." Third, "each distribution was potentially a separate offense, so that including 'Brad' as a recipient of the psilocyn mushrooms was directly incriminating to the de-clarant." Fourth, "each statement demonstrates that the declarant was guilty as a principal of the use and possession offenses of the others named in the confession." Finally, "the circumstances do not indicate that the statements were actually self-serving. The tenor of the statements does not suggest that they were made in an attempt to minimize the declarant's culpability, or to shift blame to the appellant or others." Rather, SrA Daugherty made the statements due to "resignation and remorse."
In Williamson, the Supreme Court emphasized that "[t]he question under Rule 804(b)(3) is always whether the statement was sufficiently against the declarant's penal interest 'that a reasonable person in the de-clarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true.' " We agree with the military judge and the Air Force Comet that the portions of SrA Daugherty's confession that implicated Appellant satisfied that test. The military judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting the confession into evidence.
C. Uncharged Misconduct
Shortly before SrA Daugherty executed an affidavit claiming to have forgotten Appellant's involvement in the psilocyn mushroom purchase, Appellant had sought him out in his quarters to ask him to speak with his defense counsel. The final issue in this case is whether the military judge erred by allowing the Government to use this evidence to suggest that Appellant obstructed justice.
The admissibility of uncharged misconduct is governed by the three-part Reynolds test. That three-part test asks:
1. Does the evidence reasonably support a finding by the court members that appellant committed prior crimes, wrongs or acts?
2. What "fact . of consequence" is made "more" or "less probable" by the existence of this evidence?
3. Is the "probative value . substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"?
If any one of the three parts is not met, the evidence is not admissible. Because we hold that the military judge clearly abused his discretion in applying the third part of the Reynolds test, we need not address the other two.
Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Friendly has explained why a change in a witness's recollection is, by itself, insufficient to support an inference of wrongdoing by the party who benefited from the change:
If a witness who once professed testimonial knowledge favorable to the proponent denies this knowledge on the stand, the mind asks what caused the change and recognizes that wrongful pressure from the opponent might be the explanation. Intimidation of the witness would, of course, be independently relevant, and proof of this admissible. But mere failure of a witness to repeat a prior statement helpful to the proponent gives an exceedingly slight basis for drawing the inference. The first statement itself may have been wrong and the oath or the prospect of cross-examination may have led the witness spontaneously to correct it; if the opponent had spoken to the witness, he can as well have been asking information as giving directions; or the witness may simply have forgotten____
As Judge Friendly suggests, in any given case there may be alternative explanations for a witness's memory loss.
In this case, the evidence's probativeness of misconduct by Appellant is further undermined by SrA Daugherty's testimony that Appellant had nothing to do with his memory loss. On the one hand, the Government's case on the psilocyn specifications rested on SrA Daugherty's confession and his in-court testimony of forgetfulness that was necessary for the confession to be admitted under M.R.E. 804. SrA Daugherty's testimony that he was sure he was telling the truth when he confessed was also highly damaging to the defense. On the other hand, concluding that Appellant was complicit in SrA Daugherty's memory loss would require disbelieving a portion of SrA Daugherty's in-court testimony. Under the peculiar facts of this case, the military judge clearly abused his discretion by concluding that the memory loss's probativeness as evidence of Appellant's consciousness of guilt was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. It therefore failed the third part of the Reynolds test for the admissibility of uncharged misconduct evidence.
We do not hold that the military judge erred by allowing the Government to present evidence concerning Appellant's meeting with SrA Daugherty the day before SrA Daugherty signed the affidavit claiming memory loss. This evidence provided the members with important background information concerning SrA Daugherty's claimed memory loss. The fact that the meeting took place was an appropriate matter for the members to consider. For example, the meeting might have induced SrA Daugherty to falsely claim loss of memory due to feelings of remorse over betraying a friend. But the military judge erred by admitting the evidence for the improper purpose of demon strating consciousness of guilt rather than for the proper purpose of evaluating the truthfulness of SrA Daugherty's claim of memory loss.
The military judge compounded this error by instructing the members that they could consider this evidence "for the limited purpose of its tendency, if any, to show the accused's awareness of his guilt of the psilo-cyn allegations." "When evidence is admitted under Rule 404(b), the [members] must be clearly, simply, and correctly instructed concerning the narrow and limited purpose for which the evidence may be considered." Here, the military judge's instructions allowed the members to consider the evidence for an impermissible purpose.
Having determined that the military judge erred by allowing the Government to use this evidence to suggest Appellant's consciousness of guilt, we must determine whether that error prejudiced Appellant. 'Where error is founded on a violation of Rule 404(b), the test for harmlessness is "whether we can say with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.' " As we apply this standard, the defense must initially meet the "threshold burden of showing that an error has occurred which is 'of such a character that its natural effect is to prejudice a litigant's substantial rights.' " The burden then "shifts to the Government to persuade us that the error was harmless." Because we conclude that the error might have swayed the members concerning the psilocyn use and possession specifications, we must reverse the members' findings as to those specifications.
The "natural effect" of the way the trial counsel used the uncharged misconduct evidence case was certainly prejudicial. The Government used the evidence to suggest Appellant's guilt of the underlying offense and the military judge's instructions expressly allowed the members to use the evidence for that purpose. Additionally, the Government's case concerning the psilocyn mushroom offenses rested almost solely on SrA Daugherty's pretrial statement. So the Government's case was certainly not overwhelming. The suggestion that Appellant suborned perjury could have been crucial to the outcome. Finally, the trial counsel extensively used the alleged uncharged misconduct in both opening statement and closing argument. Accordingly, the Government has not carried its burden to persuade us that the erroneous use of this evidence was harmless.
DECISION
The portions of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals' decision affirming the findings of guilty to the Charge and its specification (use of psilocyn), specification 2 of Additional Charge I (possession of psilocyn), and the sentence are reversed. Those findings and the sentence are set aside. The portions of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals' decision affirming the findings of guilty to Additional Charges II and III and their specifications (larceny and disorderly conduct) are affirmed. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Air Force. A rehearing on the Charge and its specification and specification 2 of Additional Charge I and the sentence is authorized. If a rehearing on these charges and specifications is not practicable, a rehearing on the sentence for the affirmed findings may be held.
. We heard oral argument in this case at the University of North Dakota School of Law, Grand Forks, North Dakota, as part of the Court's "Project Outreach." See United States v. Mahoney, 58 M.J. 346, 347 n. 1 (C.A.A.F.2003).
. 10 U.S.C. § 912a (2000).
. Appellant pleaded guilty to larceny and disorderly conduct.
. United States v. Rhodes, No. ACM 34697, 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, 2004 WL 388964 (A.F.Ct.Crim.App. Feb. 24, 2004).
. United States v. Rhodes, 60 M.J. 378 (C.A.A.F.2004)(order granting review).
. Rhodes, 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *2, 2004 WL 388964, at *1.
. 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *3, 2004 WL 388964, at *1.
. 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *4, 2004 WL 388964, at *2.
. 29 M.J. 105 (C.M.A.1989).
. Rhodes, 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *5-*6, 2004 WL 388964, at *2.
. 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *6, 2004 WL 388964, at *2.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id.
. U.S. Const. amend. VI.
. 484 U.S. 554, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988).
. Id. at 559, 108 S.Ct. 838 (alteration in original) (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987)).
. Id.
. Id. (internal citations omitted).
. Id.
. Id. at 560, 108 S.Ct. 838.
. 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).
. Id. at 59 n. 9, 124 S.Ct. 1354.
. Id.
. See, e.g., People v. Argomaniz-Ramirez, 102 P.3d 1015 (Colo.2004); Mercer v. United States, 864 A.2d 110, 114 n. 4 (D.C.2004); People v. Sharp, 355 Ill.App.3d 786, 292 fil.Dec. 118, 825 N.E.2d 706 (2005).
. M.R.E. 804(a)(3).
. M.R.E. 804(b)(3).
. Rhodes, 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *9, 2004 WL 388964, at *4 (quoting Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994)).
. 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at HO, 2004 WL 388964, at *4 (quoting Williamson, 512 U.S. at 600-01, 114 S.Ct. 2431).
. Carson v. Peters, 42 F.3d 384, 386 (7th Cir.1994).
. Williamson, 512 U.S. at 603, 114 S.Ct. 2431.
. Id. at 604, 114 S.Ct. 2431.
. Id. at 606, 114 S.Ct 2431 (Scalia, J., concurring).
. Rhodes, 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *12-T3, 2004 WL 388964, at *5.
. 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *13, 2004 WL 388964, at *5.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id.
. Id.
. 2004 CCA LEXIS 42, at *13-*14, 2004 WL 388964, at *5.
. 512 U.S. at 603-04, 114 S.Ct. 2431.
. Reynolds, 29 MJ. at 109 (citations omitted).
. United States v. Cousins, 35 M.J. 70, 74 (C.M.A.1992).
. Taylor v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co., 344 F.2d 281, 284 (2d Cir.1965) (internal citation omitted).
. See United States v. Browning, 54 M.J. 1, 7 (C.A.A.F.2000).
. United. States v. Jobson, 102 F.3d 214, 222 (6th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
. United States v. Madden, 38 F.3d 747, 753 (4th Cir.1994) (quoting United States v. Nyman, 649 F.2d 208, 211-12 (4th Cir.1980)); see Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946).
. United States v. Pollard, 38 M.J. 41, 52 (C.M.A. 1993) (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 760, 66 S.Ct. 1239).
. Id.