United States v. Stevenson
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
53 M.J. 257 (2000)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Hospital Corpsman Third Class Walter Stevenson (defendant) was on the temporary disability retired list. This meant that Stevenson was temporarily retired while the military evaluated whether his disability required permanent retirement or whether Stevenson could return to active duty. As a condition of being on the list, Stevenson was required to submit to a blood draw to monitor his diabetes. However, the military became suspicious that Stevenson was responsible for the rape of a military dependent five years earlier. In order to get Stevenson’s DNA to compare to evidence from that crime, the military investigators asked the hospital to draw a second tube of blood from Stevenson for testing during the diabetes blood draw. The hospital staff inserted a needle into Stevenson’s arm and drew two tubes of blood using that one needle: one tube for the diabetes test and one for the DNA test. Based on the test results, Stevenson was charged with rape. Stevenson moved to exclude the DNA evidence, arguing that his blood sample had been obtained unlawfully. The prosecution (plaintiff) argued that the sample had been lawfully obtained under Military Rule of Evidence 312(f) because the sample was obtained during a valid medical procedure.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Effron, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.