United States v. Stellato
2015 CAAF LEXIS 725
| C.A.A.F. | 2015Background
- Major Michael Stellato was charged with multiple child-sex offenses based on allegations by his young daughter; charges preferred March 2013 and trial repeatedly continued through 2014.
- Mrs. MS (the mother) maintained a box of materials (journals, notes, e-mails, a handwritten recantation by the child, etc.) and a plastic toy banana seized by a county sheriff; trial counsel (CPT Jones) knew of the box by Feb–Mar 2013 but did not examine or secure it.
- Defense requested broad discovery and preservation in March 2013; trial counsel delayed responses, did not inquire about certain witnesses’ or witness-treatment records, and did not instruct third parties to preserve evidence.
- Material items (recantation note, e-mails, LRE interview contradicting the allegation, and banana DNA results) were disclosed only after multiple court orders and continuances; a key defense witness (Dr. Krieg) later died and could not be deposed or testify.
- Military judge found “continual and egregious” discovery violations, dismissed the charges with prejudice; CCA vacated that dismissal. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed the CCA and reinstated the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Stellato) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel violated discovery obligations (failure to disclose/secure box, banana, witnesses, mental‑health records, preservation) | No violation as to some items because materials were not in government possession or control; government produced what it possessed | Trial counsel had duty to disclose/secure evidence within his knowledge or control and to exercise diligence; failure prejudiced defense | Trial judge’s factual findings of discovery violations were not clearly erroneous; violations (box, banana, LRE access, preservation, MH records) established |
| Whether trial counsel had duty to discover/disclose exculpatory material held by a cooperating civilian witness (the box) | No duty to seek out evidence in private witness’s possession; producing what government had sufficed | Trial counsel knew of the box, had access and opportunity to obtain it, and thus had a duty to search for and timely disclose exculpatory contents | Where prosecutor knew of and could access the box and remained effectively willfully ignorant, R.C.M. 701(a)(6) required disclosure; failure was a violation |
| Whether an item held by local law enforcement (plastic banana) was within “possession, custody, or control” of military authorities under R.C.M. 701(a)(2)(A) | The banana was held by county sheriff and thus outside military control; no violation | Trial counsel exercised de facto control/access and delayed producing the banana until court order; duty to secure and permit inspection | Court concluded military judge did not abuse discretion in finding constructive control (given access and ability to obtain banana) and treated failure to timely produce as violation (concurring judge disagreed on this point) |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was an appropriate remedy (must show willfulness/bad faith?) | CCA: dismissal with prejudice requires finding of willful suppression or misconduct; lesser remedies available | Prejudice from delayed disclosure (loss of Dr. Krieg’s live testimony, restrictions and career impact, lost/unaccounted evidence) unacceptable; court should fashion least-drastic remedy but dismissal may be necessary | Dismissal with prejudice is an available remedy under R.C.M. 701(g)(3)(D); military judge did not abuse discretion in finding prejudice and that no lesser remedy would cure it (willful misconduct not required) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor’s duty includes evidence known to others acting on government’s behalf)
- United States v. Williams, 50 M.J. 436 (C.A.A.F. 1999) (Article 46 duty: remove obstacles to defense access to information)
- United States v. Pomarleau, 57 M.J. 351 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (R.C.M. 701 discovery obligations and sanctions framework)
- United States v. Dooley, 61 M.J. 258 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (dismissing charges with prejudice within court’s remedial range in appropriate circumstances)
- United States v. Killebrew, 9 M.J. 154 (C.M.A. 1980) (government cannot conceal witnesses to impede defense access)
- United States v. Kern, 22 M.J. 49 (C.M.A. 1986) (government duty to use good faith and due diligence to preserve evidence)