Court Opinion

ID: 9836844
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:13.150714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.048100
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
Individual defense counsel did not raise a claim at trial that she was denied requested discovery under RMC 701. Nevertheless, after áppellant’s trial, in his RCM 1106(f)(4) response to the staff judge advocate’s post-trial recommendation, appellant submitted an affidavit stating: “The Defense was not provided a copy of the sworn statement of Mrs. [W], taken at Fort Benning, Ga. on April 23, 1993. . . . The Defense did not receive a copy of the division report from Marilyn G. Chase, of the CID Laboratory located at Fort Gilliam, Georgia, dated on August 5, 1993. . . .” (Emphasis added). On appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeals he further averred in his pleadings that two other documents were not provided to the defense, i.e., mental health notes pertaining to the second alleged victim (HH) in this ease, and a second evidence report discussing fibers and hairs removed from the third alleged rape victim (LH).
I would resolve this case on the basis of this Court’s decision in United States v. Ginn, 47 MJ 236, 248 (1997). Appellant’s two most recent post-trial claims of discovery violations are not supported by the record or post-trial affidavits, but only by averments in the pleadings. In this regard, I note that trial defense counsel’s equivocal response (she stated that she did “not believe” she received a copy of the mental health notes,) is not sufficient to raise this claim. As for his first two claims, they are supported by his affidavit but they consist of “speculative or conclusory observations” as to defense’s conduct as a whole. Under Ginn, supra, at 248, these claims can be rejected without ordering a factfinding hearing.