United States v. First Lieutenant MICHAEL C. BEHENNA
2011 CCA LEXIS 134
| A.C.C.A. | 2011Background
- Behenna convicted by general court-martial of unpremeditated murder and assault; sentence includes confinement, pay forfeiture, and dismissal.
- Incident occurred in Iraq (May 2008) involving interrogation of A.M. at a culvert, where Behenna killed A.M. during an unauthorized interrogation.
- Behenna’s actions followed orders to transport detainees; he isolated A.M., removed clothing, and threatened to kill during interrogation.
- Defense claimed government failed to disclose favorable evidence (Dr. MacDonell) and sought mistrial/new trial; government disputed timing and impact.
- Military judge concluded disclosure was timely or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the panel received a properly tailored self-defense instruction; voluntary manslaughter instruction sua sponte not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady/R.C.M. 701 disclosure and impact | Behenna | Behenna | Disclosures timely and harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Self-defense instruction adequacy | Behenna's theory supported by evidence | Government evidence negated self-defense | Instructions properly conveyed law and facts; no error. |
| Sua sponte instruction on voluntary manslaughter | Behenna | No basis for manslaughter instruction | No error; provocation insufficient to trigger instruction. |
| Mistrial/new trial remedies for disclosure failure | Behenna | Timely disclosure; no abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; denial of mistrial/new trial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose favorable evidence; materiality standard)
- Webb, 66 M.J. 89 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (bridges Brady with Mil. Gen. evid. and discovery rules)
- Santos, 59 M.J. 317 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (harmless-error framework for nondisclosure under Article 46/701)
- Carter v. Bell, 218 F.3d 581 (6th Cir. 2000) (notice sufficiency when defense could obtain information)
- United States v. Leedy, 65 M.J. 208 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (admissibility of findings of fact and standard of review)
- United States v. Diaz, 59 M.J. 79 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (mistrial standard; abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Cardwell, 15 M.J. 124 (C.M.A. 1983) (self-defense principles; escalation and withdrawal concepts)
- Gillenwater, 43 M.J. 10 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (instruction-on-issues requirement; R.C.M. 920(e)(3))