Wtf is going on...
"We find no merit in these arguments and determine there was no prosecutorial misconduct. In this case, trial counsel presented aggravating evidence that did not contradict the stipulation of fact or impeach the military judge’s findings that Appellant’s chokehold caused the Victim’s death. The evidence presented by trial counsel about other mechanisms of death appropriately provided “greater context of exactly what occurred that night.”120 The aggravation evidence and trial counsel’s argument provided explanations for exactly how the chokehold brought about the Victim’s death—namely, what took place internally to the Victim’s body as a result of the chokehold. The military judge properly admitted the evidence after thorough consideration."
Page 22
"This court agrees with the Government that none of the issues raised by Appellant in his mistrial motion cast substantial doubt as to Appellant’s court-martial. The military judge was correct when he determined all of the issues were “sufficiently argued and ruled on” at trial.143 Appellant also argues that the military judge’s R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) ruling “was in error” and that his denial of the mistrial “was influenced by his then-existing erroneous view of the law.”144 We disagree and, as discussed previously in this opinion, have determined that the military judge’s ruling on the aggravating evidence under R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) was proper. Finally, we agree with the Government that even though the military judge incorrectly noted that trial defense counsel did not cross-examine Dr. Fisher, the military judge did not rely on this incorrect fact to support his denial of the mistrial. He “simply note[d]” it, along with three other facts, in relation to discussion of possible forfeiture of the alleged Brady violation.145 The military judge did not make a ruling on the sua sponte issue of forfeiture, instead emphasizing that the issues were sufficiently argued at trial, did not warrant the severe remedy of mistrial, and identified no new facts or law to merit reconsideration. Appellant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied and the military judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Appellant’s request. Once more, we note that even if we found error, the proper remedy, a sentencing rehearing, has already been ordered by this Court as a result of Appellant’s first AOE. Accordingly, were we to find error related to the military judge’s ruling on Appellant’s post-trial motion for a mistrial, the error would be moot."
Pages 25-26
"We agree with the Government that every error alleged in this AOE (with the exception of AOE 1) has been addressed and rebutted in detail and that Appellant’s claim therefore lacks merit.149
Even assuming errors occurred, we find that they were not so severe as to “substantially sway” the findings or “materially prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights.”150 The prosecution’s sentencing case in aggravation was substantial, spanning three days and approximately 233 pages of documentary evidence, Appellant admitted guilt during his pleas, and, with the exception of the first AOE, there were no other alleged errors that denied Appellant the right to a fair trial.151"
Pages 26-27
*Edit too lazy to make " into ' and the bolding is my own.
-Source:
ThunderHorse Article
