74 M.J. 501
A.C.C.A.2014Background
- Appellee Major Michael F. Stellato was charged with multiple child-sex offenses; the military judge dismissed all charges with prejudice for repeated discovery violations.
- The government timely appealed under Article 62, UCMJ; the Army CCA accepted interlocutory review of the military judge’s dismissal.
- Key contested discovery items: a physical “plastic banana” seized by local law enforcement, a large “box”/binder of materials held by the alleged victim’s mother (Mrs. MS) containing emails and a note reflecting a recantation, and Mrs. MS’s mental-health records.
- Trial counsel initially failed to secure or fully disclose some materials; some contents were produced piecemeal over multiple continuances and only fully inventoried after defense requested continuances.
- The military judge found the government’s discovery practice “continual and egregious,” concluded the accused suffered prejudice (including loss of a defense witness who died), and dismissed with prejudice.
- The Army CCA vacated the dismissal, holding the judge applied an overly expansive view of discovery law (particularly as to material held by non‑government cooperating witnesses) and that dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Stellato) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear appeal under Article 62 | Government timely appealed military judge’s dismissal; Article 62 permits review of rulings terminating proceedings | Dismissal was final as ordered below; standard not contested | Court had jurisdiction under Article 62 and proceeded to review only legal questions and clear-error factual findings |
| Discovery violation re: plastic banana | Government ultimately obtained and tested banana; disclosed results to defense; no ongoing suppression | Trial counsel relied on sheriff’s statement that banana was lost and failed to secure it earlier | Court: No R.C.M. 701(a)(2)(A) violation once military authorities obtained banana; any error was not prejudicial because results were disclosed and usable at trial |
| Duty to search cooperators’ private materials (the “box”) | Trial counsel disclosed all materials in government possession; no duty to seek exculpatory items in a private cooperating witness’s box | Failure to secure box and delayed disclosure prejudiced defense; government knew box existed and should have obtained it earlier | Court: Trial counsel has no per se duty under R.C.M.701(a)(6) or Brady to search private/third‑party holdings; cooperator is not automatically a government agent; judge erred to the extent he required such affirmative search |
| Remedy: dismissal with prejudice for discovery failures | Dismissal necessary to remedy systemic discovery failures and prejudice to accused (lost witness, career harm, restrictions) | Dismissal is drastic; lesser remedies (continuance, sanctions, limiting instructions, stipulations) suffice absent willful misconduct or bad faith | Court: Dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion here; no finding of willful suppression or bad faith and defense ultimately received known exculpatory materials; vacated dismissal and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to accused)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor must learn of favorable evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (due-process claim for failure to preserve evidence requires showing of bad faith)
- United States v. Williams, 50 M.J. 436 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (military due-diligence scope for governmental files beyond prosecutor’s own files)
- United States v. Gore, 60 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (dismissal is drastic; alternatives preferred)
- United States v. Graham, 484 F.3d 413 (6th Cir. 2007) (cooperating witness not equivalent to prosecution team for Brady duties)
- United States v. Coleman, 72 M.J. 184 (C.A.A.F. 2013) (Article 46 and RCM 701–703 provide broad discovery rights in military system)