Yes, military judges possess inherent authority and specific regulatory power to sanction trial counsel for discovery violations. Available sanctions range from mild remedies like granting continuances to severe measures including dismissing charges or finding prosecutors in contempt. The judge considers factors including whether violations were willful, the prejudice to the defense, effectiveness of lesser remedies, and pattern behavior. Sanctions must be tailored to cure prejudice while maintaining trial fairness.
Common sanctions include ordering immediate disclosure, granting defense continuances for preparation, precluding government evidence obtained through violations, or allowing additional defense witnesses. Judges may issue adverse inference instructions telling panels to assume withheld evidence favored the defense. For willful violations, judges can report counsel to supervisory authorities or bar associations for professional discipline. Monetary sanctions are generally unavailable in military practice.
Severe sanctions like dismissal require egregious prosecutorial misconduct where no other remedy cures prejudice. Examples include deliberately withholding exculpatory evidence, violating court orders, or pattern violations showing bad faith. The defense must typically demonstrate actual prejudice, though willful violations may warrant sanctions regardless. Appellate courts review sanctions for abuse of discretion, generally supporting trial judges who carefully document violations and tailor remedies. The threat of sanctions encourages prosecutorial compliance with discovery obligations, protecting the accused’s constitutional rights to fair notice and adequate trial preparation.