Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
3
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
2 Both the Couch Peeing and Hawaii Van Incidents were also
identified by the Government as uncharged misconduct at Appel-
lants first trial.
4
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
3 The locations for this conduct and the Texas Pool Incident
are derived from trial testimony by KS. See infra p. 6.
5
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
6
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
7
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
8
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
9
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
10
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
11
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
12
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
13
United States v. Swift, No. 16-0407/AR
Opinion of the Court
C. Additional Matters
We note that the ACCA neither identified the military
judges failure to rule on the admissibility of the M.R.E.
404(b) and 414 evidence, nor conducted its own analysis as
to whether and how that evidence was admissible and could
be used. Those issues should be addressed and resolved in
the course of the ACCAs action on remand. See United
States v. Davis, 65 M.J. 766, 771 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2007)
(conducting independent balancing under M.R.E. 414 and
403 where the military judges error meant his analysis was
entitled to no deference (citing United States v. Berry, 61
M.J. 91, 96 (C.A.A.F. 2005))).
IV. DECISION
The decision of the United States Army Court of Crimi-
nal Appeals is set aside. The case is returned to the Judge
Advocate General of the Army for remand to that court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
14