Post-trial affidavits can be admissible to prove unlawful command influence (UCI) claims, particularly when the influence wasn’t discoverable during trial. Military appellate courts recognize that UCI often occurs behind closed doors, making post-trial evidence crucial for exposing improper command actions. Affidavits from panel members, witnesses, or command personnel revealing previously unknown influence can support requests for new trials or other relief.
The threshold for post-trial UCI hearings requires affidavits raising colorable claims of unlawful influence. These might detail command pressure on witnesses, attempts to influence panel members, or improper involvement in prosecutorial decisions. Courts order fact-finding hearings when affidavits present specific, credible allegations rather than conclusory statements. The burden shifts to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that UCI didn’t affect proceedings once credible evidence raises the issue.
Admissibility depends on factors including the affiant’s credibility, corroboration, timing of disclosure, and whether the information could have been discovered earlier through due diligence. Panel member affidavits face special scrutiny under rules protecting deliberation secrecy, but courts admit them when revealing external influences rather than internal deliberative processes. Successful UCI claims based on post-trial affidavits can result in dismissal of charges, new trials, or sentence relief depending on the influence’s scope and impact on trial fairness.