
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
In today's episode we discuss U.S. v. McNulty, which involved a claim of IAC based on defense counsel not seeking an R.C.M. 706 inquiry, A.K.A., a sanity board. The claim fails but the case gives us an opportunity to discuss the issues of lack of mental responsibility and mental capacity. We also discuss an AFCCA case (U.S. v. Csiti), which demonstrates the further degradation of appellate rights under the changes to Article 66, which now limits the scope of the CCA's factual sufficiency review. Finally, we hear from Major Frederick Johnson on things you need to know when representing clients who may remain on active duty pending the appellate resolution of their case.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
In today's episode we discuss U.S. v. McNulty, which involved a claim of IAC based on defense counsel not seeking an R.C.M. 706 inquiry, A.K.A., a sanity board. The claim fails but the case gives us an opportunity to discuss the issues of lack of mental responsibility and mental capacity. We also discuss an AFCCA case (U.S. v. Csiti), which demonstrates the further degradation of appellate rights under the changes to Article 66, which now limits the scope of the CCA's factual sufficiency review. Finally, we hear from Major Frederick Johnson on things you need to know when representing clients who may remain on active duty pending the appellate resolution of their case.

112,401 Listeners

56,702 Listeners

14,234 Listeners

15,634 Listeners

29,245 Listeners

16,010 Listeners