Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Woods, C.A.A.F. (2015)
United States v. Woods, C.A.A.F. (2015)
v.
Marshand A. WOODS, Lieutenant Junior Grade
U.S. Navy, Appellant
No. 14-0783
Crim. App. No. 201300153
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued February 25, 2015
Decided June 18, 2015
BAKER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
ERDMANN, RYAN, and OHLSON, JJ., joined. STUCKY, J., filed a
separate opinion concurring in the result.
Counsel
For Appellant: Lieutenant Gabriel K. Bradley, JAGC, USN
(argued); Lieutenant David W. Warning, JAGC, USN (on brief).
For Appellee: Lieutenant Ann E. Dingle, JAGC, USN (argued);
Brian K. Keller, Esq. (on brief); Lieutenant Commander Keith
Lofland, JAGC, USN.
Military Judge:
Marcus Fulton
He was sentenced to
On
Article 25,
After
As a
In
(CAPT Villalobos):
Yes.
Yes.
Right.
Okay.
ADC: Okay.
government?
MBR:
Yes.
Right.
Is that fair to say?
Yes.
MJ: Okay. And your answer also tends to indicate that you
might think that there would be a good reason for the
military to operate under a system like the one that you
presumed that we did.
MBR:
Um-huh.
MJ: I want to make sure in my own mind and for the record
that you understand that the burden of proof in this case
is on the government, that it never shifts to the defense.
MBR:
Right.
I understand that.
Yes.
Are you completely comfortable with that?
Yes.
MJ: You dont have any reservations in your own mind about
following that instruction when I give it to you?
MBR:
As to CAPT
852(a)(2) (2012).
DISCUSSION
A military judges ruling on a challenge for cause is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
United States
We decline to find
We
12
See United
13
Id.
there is too high a risk that the public would question the
fairness of Appellants trial.
Specifically, we do not
The specific
Notwithstanding these
The
See James Q.
In our
In view
Thus, particularly in
A rehearing is authorized.
17
actual or
It is
actual partiality.
[S]uch a
Id.
It
(2001); see United States v. Olsen, 704 F.3d 1172, 1190 (9th
Cir. 2013) (ultimate determination of actual bias is reviewed
for clear error), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2711 (2014); United
States v. Powell, 226 F.3d 1181, 1188 (10th Cir. 2000).
Reviewing courts will not reverse a lower courts finding of
fact simply because we would have decided the case differently.
Rather, a reviewing court must ask whether, on the entire
evidence, it is left with the definite and firm conviction that
a mistake has been committed.