threaten his partner and cut tbe microphone off her cab radio or why the two of them would select the backwoods as the place for their tryst. One must suppose that when the defendant drove off in the victim’s cab, he could reasonably believe that she was making him a gift of the vehicle in gratitude for his participation in her scheme of revenge on her errant spouse. 23 C. Wright and K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure: Evidence § 5387 at 583 (Pocket Part 1993). We would leave the issue of an appropriate balance between the rights of defendants and rape victims which are beyond the facts of this case for another day. 46.1 Forensic fables For another example, see U.S. v. Dorsey, C.M.A., 1983, 16 Mil.Jus. 1. 46.2 After the rape U.S. v. Colon-Angueira, C.M.A., 1983, 16 Mil. Jus. 20
holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding exclusion was harmless error holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error