United States v. Chisum
2016 CCA LEXIS 759
| A.F.C.C.A. | 2016Background
- Appellant was convicted by special court-martial of a single specification of using cocaine during a 2012 trip to New Orleans; sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement (approved at 49 days), forfeitures, reduction, and reprimand. He was acquitted of multiple other drug charges that relied solely on one witness.
- Government case relied primarily on testimony of two co-accused/former friends: AB AK (co-participant) and AB CR (limited corroboration). Both witnesses admitted to memory/perception problems and prior substance issues.
- Defense moved to compel production and in camera review of AK’s and CR’s mental health records under Mil. R. Evid. 513; the military judge denied the motion without in camera review, finding the Defense had not shown a reasonable likelihood the records contained admissible, noncumulative material.
- On appeal, the court found the trial judge abused his discretion by failing to conduct an in camera review of both witnesses’ mental health records but held the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the Defense had effective impeachment material and the records would not have changed the outcome.
- The court also rejected Appellant’s challenges to factual sufficiency and alleged improper vouching by trial counsel, affirming the findings and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial judge erred by denying production and in camera review of witnesses’ mental-health records | Defense: AK and CR admitted memory problems and discussed them with providers; records likely contain admissible impeachment material and prior judge released portions in a related case | Gov: Defense failed to show a reasonable likelihood records contained admissible, noncumulative information; prior release and existing discovery made in camera review unnecessary | Court: Abuse of discretion to refuse in camera review for both witnesses under the Klemick/Wright framework, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Factual sufficiency of cocaine-use conviction | Defense: Key witnesses were unreliable, biased, intoxicated, and had memory/perception deficits so evidence insufficient | Gov: Corroborated testimony of AK and CR supports conviction; members acquitted other charges where testimony was uncorroborated | Court: De novo review finds the evidence, including corroboration between AK and CR, proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether Government’s findings argument improperly vouched for witness credibility | Defense: Trial counsel’s repeated statements that AK testified truthfully constituted impermissible vouching | Gov: Argument was proper comment on evidence and inferences; not personal assurances of veracity | Court: Argument was within permissible comment on evidence; no reversible error |
| Post-trial appellate delay | Defense: Delay between docketing and opinion was presumptively unreasonable (>18 months) and merits relief | Gov: Delay was harmless under Barker factors | Court: Delay exceeded 18 months but, under totality and Barker analysis, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wuterich, 67 M.J. 63 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (standards for abuse-of-discretion review of discovery rulings)
- United States v. Klemick, 65 M.J. 576 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006) (three‑prong test for when in camera review of privileged psychotherapist records is warranted)
- United States v. Wright, 75 M.J. 501 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2015) (in camera review appropriate to resolve privilege vs. disclosure disputes)
- United States v. Bowser, 73 M.J. 889 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 2014) (discussing Mil. R. Evid. 513 and in camera review; affirmed on appeal)
- United States v. Behenna, 71 M.J. 228 (C.A.A.F. 2012) (Brady material includes evidence impeaching credibility when material to guilt)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (whether additional cross-examination would have produced a significantly different impression of credibility)
- United States v. Collier, 67 M.J. 347 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (assessing confrontation/prejudice from limited cross-examination)
- United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (standard for de novo factual-sufficiency review)