Court Opinion

ID: 9502101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:47:43.498365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:57.148473
License: Public Domain

ERDMANN, Judge
(concurring):
I concur. I write separately to emphasize my view that the right to make an unsworn statement is specifically defined and limited by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2002 ed.) (MCM). The scope of presentence allocution through an unsworn statement includes extenuation, mitigation, and matters in rebuttal. Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c)(2)(A), MCM. See United States v. Barrier, 61 M.J. 482, 487 (C.A.A.F.2005)(Erdmann, J., concurring in the result). I agree that the Government *154opened the door for Sowell to refer to her co-actor’s acquittal in an unsworn statement. Sowell’s unsworn reference to Elliott’s acquittal would have rebutted the Government’s suggestion that as a “eo-eonspirator” Elliott had a motive to he. Under the facts of this case, it was prejudicial error for the military judge to exclude this information from Sowell’s pre-sentence unsworn statement.