United States v. Luke
2011 CAAF LEXIS 78
| C.A.A.F. | 2011Background
- Luke, a hospital corpsman, was convicted of two specifications of indecent assault in a general court-martial and sentenced to two years’ confinement and a bad-conduct discharge; convening authority approved, NMCCA affirmed; this Court granted three issues on appeal, including newly discovered evidence, discovery of PE 17, and post-trial delay; Mills (USACIL) conducted serology/DNA testing with subsequent misconduct findings against Mills; multiple DuBay hearings occurred; USACIL’s misconduct prompted a remand and further review by the CCA, which ultimately affirmed the original findings and sentence; the Court analyzes the three issues anew; the decision ultimately affirming the CCA is issued.
- The three issues addressed are: (1) whether Mills’ misconduct and new DNA/serology evidence would likely yield a more favorable result at a new trial; (2) whether PE 17 (statistical probabilities) could be admitted without prior disclosure and whether its disclosure was harmless; and (3) whether Luke’s due process rights were violated by an eleven-year post-trial processing delay, with the court ultimately finding harmless delay.
- The court relies on DuBay proceedings and USACIL findings showing Mills’ serology/DNA work had errors but did not show intentional falsification in Luke’s case; while Mills’ misconduct undermined the credibility of overall laboratory work, the court concludes the new evidence would not likely produce a substantially more favorable result for Luke.
- The panel notes the DNA evidence was corroborative, but the serology issues—though serious—were not shown to have contaminated Luke’s samples in a way that would likely change the outcome; the defense theory centered on Mills’ credibility and broader lab reliability, not solely on a single DNA result.
- The decision thus affirms the Navy-Marine Corps C.A.A.F. on all three issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence effect | Luke: Mills’ misconduct would probably yield a more favorable result. | Government: impeachment evidence on Mills is insufficient to warrant a new trial. | Not a substantial likelihood of a more favorable result. |
| PE 17 pretrial disclosure error | Luke: PE 17 should have been disclosed; it affects discovery. | Government: PE 17 was rebuttal evidence and not pretrial disclosure violation. | Harmless error. |
| Due process delay | Luke suffered eleven-year post-trial delay prejudice. | Delay was due to thorough Mills investigation and proceedings. | Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Brooks, 49 M.J. 64 (C.A.A.F.1998) (test for new-trial relief based on newly discovered evidence—would probable produce more favorable result)
- United States v. Williams, 37 M.J. 352 (C.M.A.1993) (impeachment value of newly discovered evidence; credibility context)
- United States v. Sztuka, 43 M.J. 261 (C.A.A.F.1995) (framework for substantial probability of favorable outcome from new evidence)
- United States v. Rodriguez, 67 M.J. 110 (C.A.A.F.2009) (jurisdictional treatment of timing for petitions under Article 67/UCMJ)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (S. Ct.2007) (time limits on filings can be jurisdictional)
- Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 (S. Ct.1956) (post-trial evidence affecting credibility of a government witness undermines integrity of proceedings)
- United States v. Erickson, 65 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F.2007) (law-of-the-case concept when ruling not appealed)