United States v. Martin
2016 CAAF LEXIS 495
| C.A.A.F. | 2016Background
- Appellant (Sgt Martin) was convicted at a general court-martial of one specification of wrongful sexual contact; acquitted of other charged offenses.
- The alleged victim (C1) testified that Appellant digitally penetrated her while she slept after a party; her husband (Cpl AI) slept next to her and was called as a government witness.
- On direct, Cpl AI said he initially considered the possibility he himself had touched his wife but described changes in her behavior afterward (jumpiness, depression) that led him to conclude it was not him.
- On cross, defense counsel pressed Cpl AI about his initial doubts, eliciting repeated statements that he wasn’t convinced at first. The defense did not object to the government’s subsequent redirect.
- On redirect, trial counsel elicited from Cpl AI explicit lay-opinion statements that he believed his wife and that she was telling the truth, with reasons based on her changed behavior. The military judge gave no curative instruction.
- The Navy–Marine Corps CCA found the husband’s testimony was inadmissible “human lie detector” testimony but affirmed for lack of material prejudice; CAAF granted review on prejudicial effect and a certified issue on invited error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Appellant) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether human-lie-detector testimony by the victim’s husband was materially prejudicial | Husband’s explicit endorsement of the victim’s truthfulness was highly prejudicial and affected outcome | Admission was harmless or not reversible because defense invited the evidence | Court did not decide prejudice because it found invited error; affirmed CCA decision |
| Whether trial defense counsel invited error by eliciting the husband’s doubts on cross-examination | Defense contends government first opened door on direct and thus invited error itself | Government contends defense opened the door by repeatedly probing doubts, making rebuttal by redirect foreseeable | Court held defense invited the error by eliciting the line of questioning; invited-error doctrine bars relief |
| Admissibility of lay testimony about a spouse’s changed behavior on direct | Appellant argues such testimony functionally equaled a credibility opinion | Government argues observations about changed behavior were permissible lay testimony under MRE 701 | Court held Cpl AI’s observations about behavior on direct were permissible lay testimony and not the functional equivalent of human-lie-detector evidence |
| Proper response/remedy when human-lie-detector testimony is elicited on redirect after defense cross | Appellant seeks reversal or relief for introduction and lack of curative instruction | Government says rebuttal was proper after defense opened the issue and no relief is available for invited error | Court held rebuttal was permissible because defense opened the door; invited-error doctrine precludes reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Knapp, 73 M.J. 33 (C.A.A.F. 2014) (defines and prohibits human lie-detector testimony)
- United States v. Mullins, 69 M.J. 113 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (functional-equivalency test for human lie-detector evidence)
- United States v. Brooks, 64 M.J. 325 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (examining when testimony is functional equivalent of credibility opinion)
- United States v. Schlamer, 52 M.J. 80 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (invited-error doctrine bars relief for errors a party induced)
- United States v. Eggen, 51 M.J. 159 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (defense opening the door permits prosecution rebuttal)
- United States v. Raya, 45 M.J. 251 (C.A.A.F. 1996) (invited-error doctrine prevents taking advantage of one’s own created error)