and whether such misconduct was prejudicial error are questions of law that we review de novo.” Id. (citing United States v. Meek, 44 M.J. 1, 5-6 (C.A.A.F.1996); United States v. Sullivan, 42 M.J. 360, 363 (C.A.A.F.1996)). “Prosecutorial misconduct is ‘action or inaction by a prosecutor in violation of some legal norm or standard, e.g., a constitutional provision, a statute, a Manual rule, or an applicable professional ethics canon.’ ” Id. (quoting Meek, 44 M.J. at 5). As the DuBay judge noted in his conclusions of law, this court has held that “[sjeveral legal norms are violated when a trial counsel attempts to or unlawfully dissuades a defense witness from testifying at a court-martial.” Meek, 44 M.J. at 5; see also Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1189
holding that a trial judges action in singling out a defense witness for a lengthy admonition on the dangers of perjury effectively drove that witness off the stand and thus deprived the defendant of due process of law under the fourteenth amendment holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary holding that a judges lengthy perjury warnings to a defense witness effectively drove the witness off the stand thereby denying the defendant his due process right to present his defense holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness