United States v. Hull, 2011 CAAF LEXIS 462

United States Army Air Force case against Hull in which a general court-martial convicted Hull of dereliction of duty, rape, and adultery; sentence included dishonorable discharge, 3 years confinement, and reduction to E-1; findings and sentence were approved by convening authority.
Post-trial discovery of an unsworn witness statement from Taycee Smith alleging TB said not rape; defense sought new trial under R.C.M. 1210.
SJA advised convening authority that Smith’s credibility was questionable and that new-trial criteria under R.C.M. 1210 did not mandate a new trial.
Convening authority denied relief and approved findings and sentence; defense argued for set aside conviction or rehearing.
Appellate review held that SJA did not err and convening authority did not abuse discretion in denying new trial; post-trial options under Article 60 and Article 39(a) discussed.
Court affirmed the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether SJA erred in advising against a new trial	Hull argues advice was misapplied	Government argues advice was appropriate given credibility concerns	No reversible error
Whether convening authority abused discretion in denying a new trial	Hull contends new evidence warranted rehearing	Government contends no manifest injustice without new trial	No abuse of discretion

United States v. Williams, 37 M.J. 352 (C.M.A. 1993) (new-trial relief disfavored unless manifest injustice)
United States v. Ruiz, 49 M.J. 340 (C.A.A.F. 1998) (post-trial Article 39(a) considerations and witness compelment context)
United States v. Begnaud, 848 F.2d 111 (8th Cir. 1988) (post-trial inquiry limitations and witness availability)
United States v. Scaff, 29 M.J. 60 (C.M.A. 1989) (utilizing 1210 criteria in post-trial context)
United States v. Taylor, 60 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (SJA advice utility and efficiency in resolving legal issues)