Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Diaz

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Decided September 17, 2003No. 02-0513/ARPublished

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrawford, Chief Judge

Introduction

To reach its desired result on the key issue, the majority concludes that all the evidence of Appellant’s prior abuse of Nicole was inadmissible under Military Rule of Evidence 404(b) [hereinafter M.R.E.]. Yet Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988), and Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991), make clear that M.R.E. 404(b) is a rule of inclusion, not a rule of exclusion, and that under this rule, the evidence of Appellant’s prior abuse of Nicole was admissible.

In Huddleston, the Court noted:

Article IV of the…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Estelle v. McGuireSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Colorado v. ConnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Huddleston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  5. United States v. ReynoldsUnited States Court of Military Appeals · 1989

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API