Prasad Beyond CAAF

In United States v. Prasad, 80 M.J. 23 C.A.A.F. 2020), the court set aside the findings and sentence. 

Appellant was tried before our recent decisions held that is it impermissible to use Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 413 propensity evidence "as a mechanism for admitting evidence of charged conduct to which an accused has pleaded not guilty in order to show a propensity to commit the very same charged conduct." However, the Hills and Hukill decisions were issued by the time Appellant's case was reviewed by the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Citing our holding in those cases, the lower court held that the military judge erred in Appellant's case by permitting evidence of the charged sexual offenses to be used as M.R.E. 413 propensity evidence and by instructing the members accordingly. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside the finding of guilt and the sentence as to Specification 1 of Additional Charge II 3 and authorized a rehearing. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the remaining findings of guilt as to Specifications 1 and 3 of the Charge, finding the Hills error for those specifications to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ​

Id. at 25. I am noting the court-martial case here because of a parallel civil case Prasad had until March 10, 2022, in the District Court for North Dakota, Prasad v. Henson. 

Prasad was a service member in the United States Air Force. In general terms, this case originated with a military case against Prasad, which began in 2015. Prasad's military case has a convoluted procedural history that the Court need not address with any particularity for purposes of this Order. See, e.g., Doc. No. 1-6, pp. 19-20 (where a military judge noted that the "complexity of the case is well documented in its Article 32 investigations, trial, and sentence rehearing"). Suffice it to say, the nature of Prasad's military case prompted him to file his Petition with this Court on March 12, 2021.  
The Petition consists of three separate (though somewhat related) requests for relief: (1) a petition for habeas corpus; (2) a complaint for declaratory judgment; and (3) a petition for a writ of mandamus. Id. Prasad first requests that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the Government to release him from Grand Forks Air Force Base and honorably discharge him from the Air Force. He then requests that the Court enter a declaratory judgment finding that the Government "divested itself of personal jurisdiction over [him], such that he can no longer be court-martialed." To that end, Prasad lists the following bases for divestiture: (1) the Government's "wrongful denial of the `privileges, prerogatives, and emoluments of the status and rank' to which [Prasad] is entitled," (2) the Government's "failure to provide [Prasad] with any duties commensurate of his rank," and (3) "the lack of intention to court-martial him at Grand Forks [Air Force Base]."  
Prasad additionally requests that the Court issue a writ of mandamus for the correction of records and restoration of his rights and privileges pursuant to Article 75 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

The court dismissed the case without prejudice. An interesting read. ​