United States v. Muller
201600294
| N.M.C.C.A. | Jul 27, 2017Background
- Appellant, a Marine, was convicted at a general court-martial of aggravated assault, assault consummated by a battery, and drunk and disorderly conduct for an unprovoked violent attack on RC that caused brain bleeding and multiple facial fractures.
- The convening authority approved a sentence of six months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge; the appellant appealed raising two errors.
- Defense sought production of Dr. B (a neurologist) pretrial as an expert consultant and later as a trial witness to rebut government testimony about the seriousness of RC’s brain injuries; the military judge granted consultant status but denied production as a trial expert for lack of demonstrated necessity.
- Mid-trial the defense renewed the request after government treating physicians testified; the military judge limited government witnesses from quantifying the severity of the brain bleed and gave curative and final instructions defining grievous bodily harm.
- After trial, appellant was diagnosed with PTSD; he claimed trial counsel were ineffective for not investigating or presenting PTSD evidence at trial.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in denying production of Dr. B and no Strickland deficiency by trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of defense expert (Dr. B) | Needed to rebut government experts and show brain bleeds were minor; production necessary for cross-examination | Defense never showed specific conflicts or what Dr. B would testify to; judge already limited government testimony and instructed members on seriousness | Denial affirmed — defense failed to show necessity; judge’s limitations and instructions obviated need for Dr. B |
| Mid-trial renewal for Dr. B | After government testimony, still necessary to counter severity opinions | Trial judge curtailed quantification by government experts and gave curative instruction; defense satisfied with measures | Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; members instructed to decide seriousness |
| Ineffective assistance for not investigating PTSD | Counsel should have evaluated and presented PTSD evidence that might have mitigated culpability | No PTSD diagnosis at trial, no known symptoms presented to counsel, extensive character evidence contradicted PTSD signs; post-trial diagnosis insufficient to show counsel deficient | Denial affirmed — Strickland first prong not satisfied; performance objectively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Anderson, 68 M.J. 378 (C.A.A.F. 2010) (abuse of discretion review of expert testimony production)
- United States v. Freeman, 65 M.J. 451 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (range of choices under abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Gore, 60 M.J. 178 (C.A.A.F. 2004) (abuse of discretion principles)
- United States v. Ruth, 46 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (factors for witness production under R.C.M. 703(b))
- United States v. Holt, 33 M.J. 400 (C.M.A. 1991) (presumption that members follow curative jury instructions)
- United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015) (standard for ineffective assistance claims in military cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008), aff'd, 556 U.S. 904 (2009) (counsel performance standard under Sixth Amendment)
- United States v. Davis, 60 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (limits on hindsight and second-guessing in ineffective assistance claims)