The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has issued an opinion in United States v. Hull.
The issues on appeal are: whether the staff judge advocate (SJA) erred by advising the convening authority (CA), pursuant to Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 1106, that no new trial was warranted and whether the CA erred by failing to order a new trial despite the SJA’s acknowledgement that the appellant had presented new evidence that fell within the parameters of R.C.M. 1210. Further, the appellant filed a petition for a new trial pursuant to Article 73, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 873.
AFCCA denied relief on the merits of the appeal and denied a new trial. AFCCA reasoned that even if the information was newly discovered (AFCCA was not certain it could not have been obtained during pretrial preparations), the evidence would not,
probably have resulted in “a substantially more favorable result for the accused.”
Through the clemency process after trial, the trial defense counsel requested the CA set aside the conviction or grant a new trial. The request was based upon a statement, dated 8 April 2009, provided to the defense by TS, a co-worker of JH and TB. In this unsworn statement, TS indicated that TB had told her that what happened between the appellant and TB was not rape and had been consensual.