• Firm History
    • Films
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • MARSOC
    • The Stryker 5
    • Gary Myers
  • Practice Areas
    • Military Law >
      • Court-martial Information >
        • Know Your Rights
        • Court-Martial Rules >
          • Pretrial Confinement
          • Unlawful Command Influence
          • Article 31 Violation
          • Military Rule of Evidence 412
          • Involuntary Statements
          • Failure to State an Offense
          • Wheeler Factors
      • Court-Martial Defense >
        • Military Sexual Assault Defense
        • Drug Defenses >
          • Marijuana
          • Cocaine
          • Morphine and Heroin
        • Disrespect Offenses
        • Conspiracy Cases
        • False Statements >
          • Obstruction of Justice
        • Use of Force
        • Assault Cases
        • Conduct Unbecoming
      • Court-Martial Appeals >
        • Petitions for a New Trial
        • Insufficient Evidence
    • Correcting Military Records >
      • Evaluation Report Appeals
      • Reprimand Appeals
      • Family Advocacy Program Appeals
      • Discharge Review Boards
      • Cadet Misconduct
      • Titling Actions
      • Military Protective Orders
    • Separation Boards
    • Military Medical Malpractice Claims
    • Forms, Downloads, and Regulations
  • Books
  • Sketches
  • Contact
  • Results
DANIEL CONWAY | MILITARY ATTORNEY

Insufficient Evidence

Article 66(c), UCMJ, mandates that the lower appellate courts  review the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirm only those findings of guilty which this court finds correct in law and in fact.  United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324 (C.M.A. 1987); United States v. Gilchrist, 61 M.J. 785, 793 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2005). 

The court reviews the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence 
de novo.  Gilchrist, 61 M.J. at 793 (citing United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2002)).  Such a review involves a fresh, impartial look at the evidence, giving no deference to the decision of the trial court on factual sufficiency.  Washington, 57 M.J. 394 at 399.  

The term “reasonable doubt” does not mean that the evidence must be free from conflict.  
United States v. Reed, 51 M.J. 559, 562 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 1999), aff’d, 54 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2000).   

The test for legal sufficiency is “whether, considering the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable fact-finder could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.”  
United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391 (C.A.A.F. 2003); United States v. Pabon, 42 M.J. 404, 405 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).  

The test for factual sufficiency is, “whether after weighing the evidence in the record of trial, and making allowances for not having personally observed the witnesses, [this Court is] convinced of [appellant’s] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”  
Walters, 58 M.J. at 396 (citing Turner, 25 M.J. at 325)).  The court must be convinced of appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Turner, 25 M.J. at 325.  

​“In sum, to sustain appellant’s conviction, [the Court] must find that the government has proven all essential elements and, taken together as a whole, the parcels of proof credibly and coherently demonstrate that appellant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”  
Gilchrist, 61 M.J. at 793 (citing United States v. Roukis, 60 M.J. 925, 930 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2005)). ​
Myers, Conway Military Law
CALL 210-934-UCMJ
Email
Lawpay
Resources
Free Initial Consultations
Confidential. In depth. Valuable.

(210) 934-UCMJ
© COPYRIGHT 2019. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 
The information on this page is informational in nature. Nothing on this or associated pages should be construed as legal advice for a particular case. Likewise, the information on this website does not constitute the creation of an attorney-client relationship. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
  • Firm History
    • Films
    • My Lai
    • Abu Ghraib
    • Haditha
    • MARSOC
    • The Stryker 5
    • Gary Myers
  • Practice Areas
    • Military Law >
      • Court-martial Information >
        • Know Your Rights
        • Court-Martial Rules >
          • Pretrial Confinement
          • Unlawful Command Influence
          • Article 31 Violation
          • Military Rule of Evidence 412
          • Involuntary Statements
          • Failure to State an Offense
          • Wheeler Factors
      • Court-Martial Defense >
        • Military Sexual Assault Defense
        • Drug Defenses >
          • Marijuana
          • Cocaine
          • Morphine and Heroin
        • Disrespect Offenses
        • Conspiracy Cases
        • False Statements >
          • Obstruction of Justice
        • Use of Force
        • Assault Cases
        • Conduct Unbecoming
      • Court-Martial Appeals >
        • Petitions for a New Trial
        • Insufficient Evidence
    • Correcting Military Records >
      • Evaluation Report Appeals
      • Reprimand Appeals
      • Family Advocacy Program Appeals
      • Discharge Review Boards
      • Cadet Misconduct
      • Titling Actions
      • Military Protective Orders
    • Separation Boards
    • Military Medical Malpractice Claims
    • Forms, Downloads, and Regulations
  • Books
  • Sketches
  • Contact
  • Results