Court Opinion

ID: 9836901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:28.124705+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.237420
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge
(concurring):
I agree that appellant’s sentence must be reversed and remanded. However, I would hold that the Government did initially approach the gang connection on direct examination. I do not find Special Agent Barnes’ description of his gang-related education innocuous; rather it opened the door for speculation that appellant’s activities were gang related.
I would further find that the military judge did abuse her discretion by imposing the “death penalty” of sequestration sanctions without justification. The record shows only a general sequestration order without specifically mentioning Rosario. Assuming the order was violated, the extreme sanction bears no relationship to the violation. The Supreme Court in Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991), held that a judge may not take the extreme measure of excluding a witness which disproportionately punishes the party which violates a rule of evidence. Such actions are unjustified restrictions on a criminal defendant’s rights to confront adverse witnesses and present evidence. In appellant’s case, *192Special Agent Barnes testified to appellant’s gang involvement to the fullest without any opportunity of rebuttal by the defense. This presented a lethal blow to the defense sentencing case and requires reversal of his sentence.