Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
James L. Flanary
members at a general court-martial and sentenced to a badconduct discharge, confinement for six months, forfeiture of all
pay and allowances, and a reduction in grade to E-1.
The
On cross-examination he
He
In
I dont think
that the trial counsel has opened the door up to ... a general
assault ... on the entire testing process forever, or within the
first few months before or after.
With
and other quality control measures taken by the lab with regard
to the machines used in the testing process and the testing
process as a whole.
If the
On cross-examination,
irrelevant for what were here for .... None of that stuff has
anything to do with this particular testing in this particular
case.
He stressed the
United
Because the
(quoting Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986)); see
also United States v. Gray, 40 M.J. 77 (C.M.A. 1994).
We find that while the military judge correctly excluded
much of the offered evidence, he abused his discretion in
excluding evidence of the MacDill untestable rates, the Brooks
Quality Control Report regarding an unacceptable calibrator, and
the August 2, 2000, false-positive blind quality control sample.
We further find that these errors were not harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.
MacDill Untestable Rates
Mr. Mahala testified on cross-examination that he did not
have any direct recollection of collecting Israels sample and
that his testimony was based on the standard procedures he used
in collecting urine samples during a unit sweep.
His testimony
The
rerun as well.
being irrelevant.
The evidence in question concerned a calibration error that
occurred in May 2001, the same month in which Israels sample
was collected and tested.
occurred more than once in the same month could have been used
to raise questions about the reliability of the machines used in
the testing process and therefore to question the reliability of
the results of the test.
10
batch tested in that run was discarded and the test was rerun.
No explanation for the error was ever given.
Barbara Rohde was the aliquoter on the batch that had
produced this false positive and while her name appears on the
chain of custody for Israels sample, she did not handle the
sample until June 7, after the testing was complete.
Defense
11
Where
with regard to this evidence was that Ms. Solis was involved
both in the earlier error and with Israels test.
However, Ms.
Defense counsel
13
It occurred
one and a half years prior to the testing of Israels sample and
Mr. Hatzis was no longer employed at the laboratory when
Israels sample was tested.
14
15
By
United
It is
impossible to say that the members would not have taken evidence
of irregularities in the testing process and possible errors in
the results into consideration.
the untestable rates at MacDill Air Force Base, the falsepositive blind quality control sample and the Quality Control
Report were erroneously excluded, we conclude that the error was
not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
DECISION
The decision of the United States Air Force Court of
Criminal Appeals is reversed.
A rehearing is authorized.
16