Court Opinion

ID: 9837023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:16:02.121799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.846113
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that no error occurred in the exclusion of Doctor Frank’s testimony on coerced confessions. See United States v. Hall, 93 F.3d 1337, 1345 (7th Cir.1996), on remand, 974 F.Supp. 1198, 1205 (C.D.Ill.1997). However, based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998), I see no constitutional error. The exclusion of this expert evidence did not “significantly” impair presentation of appellant’s defense. Id. at 1269.
Testing for prejudice under Article 59(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 859(a), and Mil. R. Evid. 103(a), I would find none. There was an eyewitness in this case whose testimony overlaps appellant’s confession. Any positive value to the defense which might be drawn from the defense expert’s inconclusive proffer pales before this independent evidence of guilt.