Arguing that if the accused stays in the service, then the accused might cause them future, personal harm (potential future victim)

  1. ucmjlawfirm592Counsel cannot a panel full of aviators to put themselves in an aircraft that might hypothetically be repaired in the future by the accused and then instill the fear in Sentencing Argument (Art and Law) them that that hypothetical aircraft would crash. United States v. Marsh , __ M.J. __ (C.A.A.F. 2011).
  • Arguing that an acquittal would have a negative impact on the command.
    1. United States v. Causey , 37 M.J. 308 (C.M.A. 1993). In urinalysis case, trial counsel argued that if members accepted accused’s innocent ingestion defense they wouldhear it a million times againin their units. Court held this improperly inflamed members with fear that urinalysis program would break down.
  • Appealing to personal interests of sentencing authority.
    1. United States v. Nellum , 21 M.J. 700 (A.C.M.R. 1985). It was improper for trial counsel to ask the military judge if he wanted the accused walking the streets of the judge’s neighborhood.