About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

1985 Army Law. 1 (1985)

handle is hein.journals/armylaw1985 and id is 1 raw text is: THE ARMY
LAWYER

Headquarters, Department of the Army

Department of the Army Pamphlet
27-50-145
January 1985
Table of Contents
Uncharged Misconduct                 1
TJAG Policy Letter 84-5-Legal Assis-
tance Representation of Both Spouses  2
Drunk Driving: The Army's Mandatory
Administrative Sanctions            19
The Competition in Contracting
Act of 1984                         31
CAS: More Than Just Another Acronym 43
The Advocacy Section                45
Trial Counsel Forum               46
The Advocate                      59
Judiciary Notes                     73
LAMP Committee Report               75
Legal Assistance Items              76
Guard and Reserve Affairs Items     81
Enlisted Update                     84
.CLE News                           85

Current Material of Interest

Uncharged Misconduct
Colonel Francis A. Gilligan
Deputy Commandant, TJA GSA
Relevance problems are presented by evi-
dence of uncharged misconduct, which both
the trial and defense counsel may seek to intro-
duce. When a party seeks to introduce such evi-
dence to establish the crime charged, its proba-
tive value must outweigh the probability that
the fact finder will attach undue weight to the
evidence. Other factors militating against the
admissibility of such evidence are waste of
time, unfair surprise, and distraction from the
main issue.'
Both the prosecutor and the defense counsel
must be very circumspect about the introduc-
tion of uncharged misconduct. The prosecution
should insure that the introduction of the evi-
dence is not merely a ruse to show the defen-
dant is a bad person; the evidence must be both
logically and legally relevant to be admissible.
The introduction of this type of evidence has
been called the Prosecutor's Delight.2 The
evidence may be so deadly that it results in con-
viction of an innocent individual.3 The defense
'Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469 (1948); Manual for
Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, Mil. R. Evid. 403 [here-
inafter cited as Mil. R. Evid.j. Surprise is not mentioned in
Rule 403 as a factor since the remedy for surprise is not in-
admissibility of the evidence but a continuance.
2Comment, Evidence of Prior Acquittals: An Attack on the
Prosecutor's Delight, 21 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 892,896(1974).
3See E. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence §
1:03 (1984) [hereinafter cited as Imwinkelried].

1~~N

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most