The older the alleged other acts the worse the case for admission of MRE 404(b) matter in my view.
Trial counsel will often seek to admit prior bad acts through MRE 404(b). The UCMJ does not have rules of evidence in the statute, the rules of evidence are published by the President using his power to make court-martial rules and procedures. The rules of evidence (current as of 1 Aug. 14) are published in the Manual for Courts-Martial.
As I have routinely cautioned, be alert to and challenge “talismanic incantations” of MRE 404(b) admissibility that merely cites the rule. You should require the trial counsel to cite which specific exception(s) they rely on, then be precise how the supposed other acts will actually serve to make that or some other critical fact provable.
The prosecution cannot offer prior bad acts just to show, and which merely show, a bad person who may have some predisposition to commit the crime. United States v. Humpherys, 57 M.J. 83, 90-91 (C.A.A.F. 2002). This makes sense, profiling and propensity have rarely been a legitimate consideration for trials, except for military sexual assault cases.
Challenging, often through motions in-limine, such evidence should be a stock-in-trade for your military defense lawyer. Under the UCMJ and Manual for Courts-Martial, as well as the various Army Court of Criminal Appeals rules, a military defense lawyer can file motions in advance of trial. It is a good idea. It is better to litigate the issues before the trial counsel prosecutor has a chance to have them mentioned in front of the members (the jury in civilian parlance).
If the evidence fails any of the three tests, it is not admissible. United States v. Cousins, 35 M.J. 70, 74 (C.M.A. 1992); United States v. Reynolds, 29 MJ 105, 109 (C.M.A. 1989). The Reynolds test requires the prosecution show the evidence on the other crime reasonably supports guilt of that other crime (an opportunity for the defense to show how a trial within a trial may occur); that the other crime is supportive of the theory for its admission; and survive a MRE 403 balancing test. See United States v. Barnett, 63 M.J. 388, 394 (C.A.A.F. 2006); United States v. Yammine, (C.A.A.F. 2010).
When it comes to the relevance of a prior bad act it seems to me that a factor must be how close in time to the charged offenses. If it is a prior bad act of distributing some drugs a few weeks before the alleged offense, then there is a proximity arguing for admission. However, a distribution many years ago before joining the military is not proximate and should be considered inadmissible. I do not say such an act is automatically or per se inadmissible. And that’s the thrust of the court’s decision and analysis in United States v. Wallace, in which the Fifth noted the circuit law that remoteness may weaken probative value, but remoteness has never been held to be a per se bar for admission. The court also cautioned that there was no per se rule of admission either.
Your military defense lawyer should also be aware that prior acts that resulted in a court-martial AND an acquittal might still be used in a later trial under MRE 404(b). Read United States v. Tyndal, as an example. I encourage clients to read along with me on the UCMJ, court-martial, and military sexual assault to be informed about their case.
Back to Reynolds, especially in sexual assault cases, but in all cases when balancing matters under MRE 403, reference to the “Wright factors” is helpful at the trial level and will allow for some deference to the military judge on appeal. United States v. Wright, 53 M.J. 476, 482 (C.A.A.F. 2000)(listing seven non-exclusive factors). One of the specific factors is – temporal proximity – so it doesn’t just seem, it is.
So, it’s still a contextual analysis of the prior acts and how they may go to prove the current facts, without being more prejudicial than helpful.
Get your military defense lawyer to explain these issues, or if you need a case analysis get in touch with us.