The court states this basic principle from its own jurisprudence:

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a defendant to “be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. One of the primary interests secured by the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause is the right of cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 (1974). This is the“principal means by which the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony are tested.” Id. at 316. A violation of this constitutional right occurs when “the defendant is prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination that, as a result, precludes him from eliciting information from which jurors could draw vital inferences in his favor.” United States v. Montelongo, 420 F.3d 1169, 1175 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, “‘a defendant’s right to confrontation may be violated if the trial court precludes an entire relevant area of cross-examination.’” Id. (quoting Parker v. Scott, 349 F.3d 1302, 1316 (10th Cir. 2005)).

Here’s what the defense wanted to XE on and what the USA had successfully excluded by a motion in-limine, as objectionable under FRE 403.

Before Defendant’s trial began, the government filed a motion in limine to prohibit Defendant from offering evidence concerning a prior determination made by a different federal district court judge that the MTD inspector was not credible. In United States v. Variste, No. CR 06-1349 BB (D.N.M.), the district court issued a suppression order containing a finding that the court did not believe the inspector’s testimony. Specifically, the Variste court found: “This Court does not believe [the inspector] detected the odor of raw marijuana emanating from the back of the trailer because he did not follow up and that information was not communicated to any other law enforcement personnel involved or given as a basis for any subsequent stop.”

The court found this to be an issue of first impression within the Tenth, so:

Although we have not addressed the issue of whether past judicial credibility determinations are admissible under Rule 608(b), several of our sister circuits have done so and held that they are. United States v. Cedeño, 644 F.3d 79, 82-83 (2d Cir.), cert denied, 132 S. Ct. 325 (2011); United States v. Dawson, 434 F.3d 956, 957-59 (7th Cir. 2006) . . . United States v. Whitmore, 359 F.3d 609, 619-22 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

The court concluded that the proposed cross-examination was “relevant and highly probative.” The court then analyzed a number of factors to find that there was constitutional error in excluding the proposed evidence. After an HBRD analysis the case was returned for a new trial.

Any CID, NCIS, OSI, CGIS agents out there who have testified and a military judge (perhaps extraordinarily so) has found them not credible in a prior case? Discovery?

A retired JAG officer with over 23 years of experience, says the military judge who ruled against discovery for a Greeley Army officer may have derailed the government’s case based on precedent from another high profile case involving a military officer. Lt. Col John Eidsmoe, a retired Air Force officer who works for former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore at the Foundation for Moral Law, said Lakin is “raising legitimate constitutional questions” regarding President Obama’s eligibility to be commander-in-chief.

In what appears to be another mischaracterization the paper further reports:

In issuing the decision, Lind said Lakin would not be permitted to call witnesses because it has the “potential for embarrassment” of the President. Margaret Hemenway, spokeswoman for Col. Lakin, said the judge appeared to imply Lakin could be a racist by asking if this would be happening if Bush were the commander-in-chief. In the decision the government stated that even if Obama is not eligible it would not matter and all actions taken by the president would still be valid. They also state that Lakin is “duty bound to follow the lawful orders of his superiors even if the eligibility of the President under the constitution is later found deficient.” The issue of the president’s birthplace is outweighed by “the danger of confusing the issues” according to prosecutors. Eidsmoe said these statements could possibly cause problems for the government’s case based on precedent set in another recent high profile case involving Lt. Col. Michael Murphy. . . . Eidsmoe said the circumstances in the Murphy case are very similar to Lakin’s case with the refusal to allow documents and witnesses related to the President’s eligibility.

Umm, was not Lt. Col. Murphy actually colonel at the time of his prosecution.

Here is a link to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals decision in United States v. Murphy, an Article 62, UCMJ, appeal.

The issue in Colonel Murphy’s case was getting access to information about his work at the White House to be used for a good character defense. As military practitioner’s know it is very common to put on a “good Soldier” defense on the merits if possible and certainly for sentencing. I would argue that is substantially different than LTC Lakin’s issues and why he wants discovery.

LtCol. Eidsmore appears to be a member of the Air Force Reserve and a Colonel (and a chaplain) in the Alabama State Defense Force. Can anyone confirm that citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com is LtCol Eidsmoe’s website? A great deal of very interesting information can be found using Google.

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: “I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army.” The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: “I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them.”

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: “I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God.” The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read “I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God.”

You can see more of the history of U.S. military oaths at the U.S. Army Center of Military History.