Court Opinion

ID: 9502152
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:47:54.901344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:59:49.433317
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Judge
(dissenting):
It is unreasonable to hold that there was prejudicial error in this case. The military judge implicitly found by a preponderance of the evidence that the order was lawful and then submitted those elements under appropriate instructions to the court members. The members found that the prosecution had proved all these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Appellant received “two bites of the apple” on the question of the lawfulness of the order — with the second bite imposing a higher burden of proof on the prosecution when it presented its case to the members. Surely these procedures inured to the benefit of Appellant. A finding of guilty is not rendered any less reliable when its lawfulness is determined beyond a reasonable doubt.' Cf. Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 17, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (determining that “where a reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that [an] omitted element [in a jury instruction] was uncontested and supported by overwhelming evidence, such that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error, the erroneous instruction is properly found to be harmless”). Because no sound reason has been put forth to establish the unreliability of the findings, I respectfully dissent.