United States v. Evans, 201600111

Appellant (Marine) convicted by general court-martial of abusive sexual contact (Article 120, UCMJ) after an incident in a van; sentence: 6 months confinement, reduction to E‑1, bad‑conduct discharge; CA approved.
NCIS interviewed appellant in a recorded ~3‑hour session (≈1h20m questioning, remainder typing confession); agents did not use overt physical coercion; confession contained details not known to agents and appellant later swore to its truth.
Defense sought court‑appointed forensic psychology expert on false/coerced confessions and suggestibility; military judge denied both consultant and expert‑witness requests after written and oral rulings.
Military judge allowed expanded voir dire on members’ views of false confessions and permitted broad cross‑examination of NCIS agents; defense did not pursue voluntariness/suggestibility issues at trial.
Defense presented witnesses attesting to appellant’s general military character; judge instructed (without objection) that general military character evidence was relevant only to the lesser‑included assault/battery offense, not to abusive sexual contact.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of requested false‑confession expert assistance violated due process	Appellant: expert needed to show susceptibility to false/confessed statements; denial prevented a fair trial	Government: recording, lack of coercion, appellant’s admissions, and absence of indicia of suggestibility made expert unnecessary	Court: No abuse of discretion; appellant failed to prove necessity or fundamental unfairness from denial
Whether instruction excluding general military character for Article 120 offense was erroneous	Appellant: good/general military character evidence should be considered for innocence on the charged offense	Government: Modified Mil. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(A) excludes general military character for Article 120 offenses; exclusion was proper	Court: No plain error; judge correctly applied amended Mil. R. Evid. 404(a)(2)(A) and declined to instruct otherwise

United States v. Bresnahan, 62 M.J. 137 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (standard for entitlement to expert assistance: necessity and fundamental fairness)
United States v. Gunkle, 55 M.J. 26 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (accused must show more than mere possibility of assistance from an expert)
United States v. Lloyd, 69 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of expert assistance)
United States v. Killion, 75 M.J. 209 (C.A.A.F. 2016) (de novo review for instructional error)
United States v. Czekala, 42 M.J. 168 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (plain‑error review when issue forfeited at trial)
United States v. Wolford, 62 M.J. 418 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (harmless‑beyond‑reasonable‑doubt test for constitutional instructional error)
United States v. Davis, 76 M.J. 224 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (forfeiture and plain‑error framework for jury instructions)
United States v. Feliciano, 76 M.J. 237 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (distinguishing forfeiture and waiver; plain‑error review)
United States v. Gagan, 43 M.J. 200 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (importance and potential power of character evidence)