United States v. Maebane

Maebane is important.

If anyone is interested in submitting a post on this, please do so at [email protected]. You can go anonymous, pseudonym, or by name. I can't do it because I'm conflicted--the HM1.

3-2, CAAF answered this question.

The granted issue requires us to decide whether an accused has “a Sixth Amendment right to present evidence of a recorded third party’s confession to the crime for which the accused is on trial.” We conclude that under the facts of this case, the military judge violated Appellant’s constitutional right to present the evidence, and the military judge’s exclusion of such evidence was prejudicial. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the NMCCA.
. . .
Appellant moved for a preliminary ruling to admit the recording of HM3 Whiskey’s interview with SA Tango and his handwritten note to the victim’s parents under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 807, the residual exception to the rule against hearsay. Appellant’s motion also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006), and this Court’s decision in United States v. Woolheater, 40 M.J. 170 (C.M.A. 1994), in arguing that excluding this evidence would violate his Sixth Amendment right to present a complete defense. In his ruling on the motion, the military judge determined that the evidence was inadmissible under M.R.E. 807 because the statements were untrustworthy.