United States v. Jasper
2013 CAAF LEXIS 629
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Jasper was convicted by general court-martial of indecent conduct, indecent acts with a child, possession and receipt of child pornography, and obstruction of justice, all under UCMJ Article 134.
- The ACCA affirmed the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority.
- The government sought review on four issues, centered on the clergy privilege and waiver under M.R.E. 503 and 510(a).
- The key evidentiary issue was whether BK’s statements to Pastor Ellyson were waived for disclosure to trial counsel when BK and AJ consented to disclosure.
- The military judge had denied production and excluded BK’s statements, ruling the privilege had not been waived.
- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed, held waiver occurred, and set aside findings and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of clergy privilege under M.R.E. 510(a) | Jasper: no waiver; privilege remains intact. | Jasper: waiver occurred because consent to disclose to trial counsel was given. | Waiver occurred; rule not requiring knowledge of privilege. |
| Whether waiver required the privilege holder to know it was privileged | Jasper: knowledge of privilege is needed for waiver. | Government: waiver does not require knowledge of privilege. | No knowledge requirement; waiver valid upon voluntary disclosure. |
| Effect of waiver on admissibility of BK's statements | Waiver should allow defense to use BK's statements to rebut credibility. | Waiver would undermine the privilege and limit impeachment evidence. | Waiver permits disclosure to defense; trial court erred by excluding statements. |
| Constitutional impact of evidentiary ruling on confrontation and due process | Exclusion of BK's statements harmed defense and credibility assessment. | Cross-examination limits are within trial judge's discretion. | Constitutional rights violated; error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Collier, 67 M.J. 347 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (prejudice standard for evidentiary rulings in impeachment context)
- United States v. McElhaney, 54 M.J. 120 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (abuse of discretion standard in military evidentiary decisions)
- United States v. McCollum, 58 M.J. 323 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (waiver concepts in privilege context; voluntary disclosure)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) (limitations on testimonial privileges; public interest in evidence)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (role of witness testimony and due process in confrontation analyses)