Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Mahoney, C.A.A.F. (2003)
United States v. Mahoney, C.A.A.F. (2003)
v.
Michael J. MAHONEY, Master Sergeant
U.S. Air Force, Appellant
No. 02-0270
Crim. App. No. 34209
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Argued February 25, 2003
Decided June 25, 2003
CRAWFORD, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which GIERKE, EFFRON, BAKER, and ERDMANN, JJ., joined.
Counsel
For Appellant: Major Kyle R. Jacobson (argued); Colonel Beverly
B. Knott and Major Terry L. McElyea (on brief); and Major
Jeffrey A. Vires.
For Appellee: Major John D. Douglas (argued); Colonel LeEllen
Coacher and Lieutenant Colonel Lance B. Sigmon (on brief); and
Colonel Anthony P. Datillo, Major Jennifer R. Rider, and Captain
Adam Oler.
Amicus Curiae: Claudia N. McClinton (law student)(argued); Eric
L. Muller, Esq. (supervising attorney) and Heather A. Maddox
(law student) For the University of North Carolina School of
Law.
Military Judge:
Patrick M. Rosenow
The
The Air
No. ACM 34209 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2001).
We granted
II.
FACTS
The charge against Appellant resulted from a random
urinalysis conducted on September 20, 1999, at Lackland Air
Force Base (AFB), Texas.
The defense
The letter
requested that the Brooks AFB legal office provide him with a
copy of the letter, along with any associated materials, noting
that the letter had not been disclosed despite the defenses pretrial request for all information potentially affecting the
credibility of the Governments prospective witnesses.
The base
DISCUSSION
The lower court determined that because the Government did
not know of the letter until informed by defense counsel after
trial, there was no bad faith on the part of the prosecution,
and found that even if the Government did breach its obligation,
there was no prejudice.
3-4.
Id. at 4.
We disagree.
The Governments
command SJA wrote the letter to his superior in the legal chain
of technical supervision, criticizing the Governments key
witness.
United States v.
In rendering our
Id.
Brady,
(1985)(citations omitted).
Id. at 682.
Kyles,
Failing to
Brady, 373
of Appellants case.
Manual
See
Cross-
examining Dr. Mobley about the letter may have revealed this
motive, serving to damage Dr. Mobleys credibility, and thereby
enhance the defenses case.
Appellant asserts that the letter eventually was sent to the Drug Testing
Laboratory, where a copy of it was given to Dr. Mobley, attached to a
staffing sheet. While the staffing sheet does not list Dr. Mobley by name as
an addressee, it contains file symbols for nine separate staff agencies
involved in the leadership and supervision of the Drug Testing Laboratory,
and it recites that, as a result of LtCol Rupperts complaints, a formal
training session was held for DTL experts. It is a fair inference from the
evidence that Dr. Mobley was one of those DTL experts. Moreover, the
Government has not challenged Appellants assertion that a copy of the letter
was given to Dr. Mobley. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
accept Appellants assertion as true.
10
The findings of
11