United States v. Coleman
2013 CAAF LEXIS 500
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Appellant convicted by general court-martial of causing sexual act by force and adultery; CA reduced sentence but affirmed overall; CCA vacated adultery conviction but affirmed rest; case reviewed for denial of mistrial after undisclosed clemency deal.
- PFC Pilago, co-actor, had oral agreement with the SJA to recommend clemency in exchange for testimony; agreement not disclosed to defense.
- Appellant timely requested discovery of any immunity/leniency agreements; government said disclosure would be provided if relevant.
- Pilago testified for both sides; defense moved to exclude references to his conviction or the sentence; trial counsel disclosed no written agreement.
- Post-trial hearing found the oral clemency agreement was favorable and material but held nondisclosure harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Court affirmed judgment, holding no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial given harmless error stance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nondisclosure of clemency agreement violated Brady and due process | Appellant: Pilago agreement was favorable and material | Government: error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Yes, Brady violation found but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Appropriate standard to assess nondisclosure under Article 46/R.C.M. 701-703 | Appellant: discovery rights violated by nondisclosure | Government: harmless error standard governs | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt applied |
| Effect of undisclosed agreement on defense cross-examination and closing | Defense could have cross-examined with clemency motive | No material impact expected | Disclosure would not have changed outcome |
| Whether the prior consistent statement of Pilago would have altered outcome | Potential impeachment tool unavailable without disclosure | Statement marked but not admitted; no impact on result | Not outcome-determinative; harmless anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (– (1963)) (u.s. due process requires disclosure of favorable evidence)
- Smith v. Cain, 132 S. Ct. 627 (2012) (harmless error review for Brady violations)
- United States v. Roberts, 59 M.J. 323 (2004) (Article 46 provides broader discovery rights than due process)
- Hart v. Behenna, 29 M.J. 407 (1990) (two-category disclosure analysis; heightened standard when specific request for undisclosed info)
- United States v. Behenna, 71 M.J. 228 (2012) (harmless error standard for certain disclosure errors)
- United States v. Graner, 69 M.J. 104 (2010) (R.C.M. 703 disclosure expectations)