the Government’s failure to provide discovery of exculpatory state- merits, and “[i]f a rehearing is ordered, we would expect the military judge to examine in camera any documents for which the work-product privilege is claimed”). Remedy: A dismissal is a drastic remedy and courts must look to see whether alternative remedies are available. Gore, 60 M.J. at 187. Dismissal is not appropriate where an error can be rendered harmless by an alternative remedy. See United States v. Green, 4 M.J. 203, 204 (C.M.A.1978). Conversely, dismissal is appropriate when an accused would be prejudiced or no useful purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings. Id. (citing United States v. Gray, 47 C.M.R. 484, 486 (C.M.A.1973)); see also United States v. Dooley, 61 M.J. 258, 264-65 (C.A.A.F.2005) (<HOLDING>). Continuances: In the context of a direct
holding the military judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing charges with prejudice for violation of speedy trial courtmartial rule and recognizing that the military judge assessed the prejudice that would result from remedies short of dismissal recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403 holding that a trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence of pending charges and that where the defendant was given a full opportunity outside the presence of the jury to develop a foundation for bias but failed to do so the trial judge did not abuse its discretion holding that a military judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing charges with prejudice to remedy unlawful command influence