Court Opinion

ID: 9502129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 18:47:47.644433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:58.591016
License: Public Domain

ERDMANN, Judge
(concurring):
I concur. I write separately to disassociate myself from any implication that United States v. Grill, 48 M.J. 131 (C.A.A.F.1998), properly expands the scope of pre-sentence unsworn statements. The right to make an unsworn statement is specifically defined and limited by the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2002 ed.). The scope of presentence allocution through an unsworn statement includes extenuation, mitigation, and matters in rebuttal. Rule for Courts-Martial 1001(c)(2)(A). See United States v. Barrier, 61 M.J. 482, 484 (C.A.A.F.2005)(Erdmann, J., concurring in the result). Because Johnson’s proposed unsworn reference to the results of a polygraph test served to impeach or relitigate the finding of guilt rather than to extenuate, mitigate, or rebut, the military judge acted properly in preventing Johnson from referring to the polygraph examination during the unsworn statement.