Court Opinion

ID: 9837064
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:16:12.040756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:20.149287
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring):
The first issue in this case should also be resolved in appellant’s favor. It asks:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY EXCLUDING MITIGATION EVIDENCE INFORMING THE MEMBERS THAT THE ACTUAL KILLER, DENNIS SIMOY, WOULD NOT FACE THE DEATH PENALTY.
The right of a capital defendant to present mitigation evidence under the Constitution is very broad. See Boyd v. French, 147 F.3d 319, 325-26 (4th Cir.1998). Moreover, as a matter of federal statutory law, it is a mitigation factor that “[a]nother defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the crime, will not be punished by death.” 18 USC § 3592(a)(4) and 21 USC § 848(m)(8). See United States v. Beckford, 962 F.Supp. 804, 811-13 (E.D.Va.1997) (discussing state and federal case law). RCM 1004(b)(3), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, likewise provides a military accused facing the death penalty a broad right to present mitigation evidence.
I strongly disagree with the military judge and the Court of Criminal Appeals that some general doctrine against the comparison of court-martial sentences undermines the relevance of the proffered evidence in this capital case. Admittedly, appellant is not legally entitled to the same or a lesser sentence as his brother, the actual triggerman in this case. See Hatch v. State of Oklahoma, 58 F.3d 1447, 1466-67 (10th Cir.1995). However, to hold the triggerman’s fate is irrelevant in appellant’s case, a nontriggerman participant in the same murder, ignores applicable federal practice without reason. See generally Article 36, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 836 (apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts). This is a capital case, and Mil.R.Evid. 401, Manual, supra, must be applied consistently with RCM 1004(b)(3). See generally RCM 1001(c)(3) (rules of evidence relaxed during sentencing).