AUTHORITY THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE FOUND THE CHARGES MULTIPLI-CIOUS FOR SENTENCING. (Citations omitted.) 2 . DID THE ADMISSION OF TESTIMONY AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN VIOLATION OF MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE 301(f)(3) THAT HE ELECTED UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND ARTICLE 31 OF THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE TO REMAIN SILENT CONSTITUTE REVERSIBLE ERROR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE? (Citations omitted.) 3 . The lack of objection by the defense counsel does not relieve the military judge of his paramount duty to instruct the members regarding the improper introduction of such evidence. United States v. Earnesty, 34 M.J. 1179, 1181 (A.F.C.M.R.1992). 4 . See also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (<HOLDING>). 5 . The Supreme Court has said that 'plain'
holding that the states improper use of the defendants postmiranda silence to impeach the defendants claim that shooting was accidental did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining jurys verdict and thus was harmless error holding that nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that an error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that states improper use of defendants postmiranda silence was error but did not warrant habeas relief unless error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jurys verdict