United States v. Stellato
74 M.J. 473, 2015 WL 4991663, 2015 CAAF LEXIS 725 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A military judge may dismiss charges with prejudice for egregious and repeated discovery violations that cause incurable prejudice to the accused, such as the loss of a key witness due to trial delays. A prosecutor cannot avoid discovery obligations by remaining willfully ignorant of exculpatory evidence held by a key government witness.
Facts:
- In May 2009, Mrs. MS reported to civilian police that her husband, Major Stellato, had molested their young daughter, Miss MS, over a two-year period.
- The Sheriff's Department seized a plastic banana allegedly used in the assaults, and a psychologist, Dr. Fred Krieg, evaluated the family for custody proceedings, finding no evidence of abuse by Stellato.
- In May 2012, Mrs. MS reported the same allegations to the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (CID), and Stellato was redeployed from Afghanistan and placed under significant restrictions.
- In February 2013, the trial counsel, CPT Jones, met with Mrs. MS and saw a box of evidence she had compiled, but he declined to examine its contents after warning her that anything she provided would have to be turned over to the defense.
- This box contained Mrs. MS's journals, correspondence with Stellato in which he denied the allegations, and a handwritten note by Mrs. MS documenting that Miss MS had recanted an allegation.
- During the investigation, Miss MS alleged that a friend, Miss LRE, was present during the assaults and was also molested by Stellato.
- The repeated trial delays, caused by the government's discovery failures, resulted in the death of a key defense witness, Dr. Krieg, who passed away from cancer before he could be deposed or testify.
Procedural Posture:
- The Government preferred charges against Major Stellato in a general court-martial.
- The defense filed its first discovery request on March 22, 2013.
- The military judge granted three separate continuances of the trial date due to the government's repeated failures to comply with discovery obligations.
- Following the disclosure of numerous discovery violations, including the year-long failure to disclose a box of exculpatory evidence, Stellato's defense counsel moved to dismiss the case.
- The military judge granted the motion and dismissed all charges with prejudice.
- The Government, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA).
- The CCA, an intermediate appellate court, vacated the military judge's ruling, finding the judge had abused his discretion.
- Stellato, as petitioner, appealed the CCA's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the military judge abuse his discretion by dismissing the charges with prejudice as a remedy for the government's 'continual and egregious' discovery violations?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Ohlson
No, the military judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice. The judge correctly found that the trial counsel committed continual and egregious discovery violations which caused incurable prejudice to the accused. The prosecutor violated discovery rules by failing to preserve evidence, impeding access to an exculpatory witness (Miss LRE), and failing to disclose or inspect a box of evidence held by the primary witness, Mrs. MS. A prosecutor cannot avoid discovery obligations by remaining willfully ignorant of evidence that reasonably tends to be exculpatory, even if that evidence is in the hands of a government witness. The prejudice to Stellato was severe, culminating in the loss of a key defense witness, Dr. Krieg, who died during one of the many continuances forced by the government's failures. The military judge properly considered and rejected lesser sanctions before concluding that dismissal with prejudice was the only just remedy under the circumstances.
Concurring - Judge Stucky
Yes, I concur in the result that the dismissal was appropriate, but disagree with a portion of the majority's reasoning. The trial counsel's violations regarding the undisclosed 'box' of evidence held by Mrs. MS were severe enough on their own to justify the dismissal with prejudice. However, the majority is incorrect to hold that the plastic banana, which was held by a civilian sheriff's department, was within the 'possession, custody, or control of military authorities.' The majority's interpretation of federal case law on this point is flawed, as evidence held by a separate state or local agency is generally not considered to be in the constructive possession of military prosecutors. Despite this error in reasoning, the overall outcome is correct due to the other egregious discovery violations.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of a military prosecutor's discovery obligations, establishing that the duty to disclose extends to evidence they are aware of but have not physically possessed, especially when held by a key cooperating witness. The court's 'willful ignorance' doctrine prevents prosecutors from strategically avoiding knowledge of exculpatory material to circumvent their disclosure duties. Furthermore, the decision affirms that dismissal with prejudice is a permissible, if drastic, sanction for severe discovery violations that cause irreversible prejudice, even without a formal finding of prosecutorial bad faith. This holding serves as a powerful deterrent against a 'recklessly cavalier' approach to discovery in the military justice system.
