Army Court of Criminal Appeals

United States v. Abdullah

A GP SPCM.
We have another case in which ACCA addresses the inadequate and perfunctory delay explanations for dilatory post-trial processing. Abdullah was a one-day case, and the transcript was 101 pages. The court notes it took 96 days, a little over a page a day.

United States v. Johnson

"The first assignment of error asserts the military judge erred in admitting three statements under the excited utterance exception to hearsay."

The defense objected to two of the statements. ACCA found an error but no prejudice. The third statement was not objected to, was considered forfeited, and was examined under the plain error test. The court jumped the question of error and went straight to the prejudice analysis. Generally, ACCA found the two objected-to statements were indicative of "reflection and deliberation as opposed to being spontaneous, excited, or impulsive."

ACCA points out that the MJ failed to "put his full analysis on the record and did not address the elements required under Arnold [25 MJ 129, 132 (CMA 1987)], nor did he provide analysis for the third element using the Donaldson factors, thereby affording him less deference by this court. United States v. Flesher, 73 MJ 303, 312 (CAAF 2014)."
​
This failure was meaningful because "Although we acknowledge this is a close call, we afford the military judge little deference due to his failure to place his full analysis on the record."

Cheers, Phil Cave