United States v. Neill
ACM 39099
| A.F.C.C.A. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Appellant, assigned to Whiteman AFB, forced entry into the bar “A Little Off Base” on Dec. 14, 2015, and stole liquor and money.
- Owner (Ms. TM) discovered damage and missing items later that day; surveillance cameras had recorded the premises.
- Local detective (Detective DM) reviewed bar video, identified a suspect and vehicle, ran the plate, linked the vehicle to Appellant, and coordinated a trash pull and search of Appellant’s residence that produced stolen items and matching clothing.
- Government introduced bar surveillance video (played from a compact disc) and photographs; Ms. TM and Detective DM testified about the system, downloading process, and consistency of images.
- Appellant contested authentication and chain-of-custody for the video at trial; military judge admitted the video.
- Appellant was convicted of two larceny specifications and one housebreaking specification; he appealed only the video-admission ruling. The court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the surveillance video was properly authenticated under Mil. R. Evid. 901 | Owner and detective did not prove the surveillance system was tested or inherently reliable; gaps in chain of custody | Testimony from owner and detective, corroborating photos and physical evidence, and testimony of download/transfer steps sufficed to show the video is what the Government claims it is | Video authentication satisfied; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether chain of custody deficiencies required exclusion of the video | Owner could not testify to every step; detective unfamiliar with specific system model | Owner explained system operation and assisted download; detective corroborated transfer from system to thumb drive to CD and consistency of images | Gaps go to weight, not admissibility; chain-of-custody was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Clayton, 67 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; fact findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Courts, 4 M.J. 518 (C.G.C.M.R. 1977) (Government not required to prove perfect chain of custody)
- United States v. Harris, 55 M.J. 433 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (gaps in chain of custody affect weight, not necessarily admissibility)
- United States v. Maxwell, 38 M.J. 148 (C.M.A. 1993) (deficiencies in chain of custody generally go to weight of evidence)