
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Send us a text
Today we discuss a NMCCA case that dismisses an illegal drug use charge under Article 112a, UCMJ, for being factually insufficient. The case provides a great vehicle for discussing the permissive inference instruction and how defenders should push back against its use when there is no actual evidence that would make the inference reasonable. We then hear from Captain Brusik on the Novel Offenses Doctrine, which is closely related to the pre-emption doctrine for Article 134 offenses. He does a great job of breaking it down and highlights defense challenges to charging allegations of sexual harassment under Article 92, when there is now an enumerated Article 134 offense for that offense.
By Sam Castanien & Trevor Ward5
1919 ratings
Send us a text
Today we discuss a NMCCA case that dismisses an illegal drug use charge under Article 112a, UCMJ, for being factually insufficient. The case provides a great vehicle for discussing the permissive inference instruction and how defenders should push back against its use when there is no actual evidence that would make the inference reasonable. We then hear from Captain Brusik on the Novel Offenses Doctrine, which is closely related to the pre-emption doctrine for Article 134 offenses. He does a great job of breaking it down and highlights defense challenges to charging allegations of sexual harassment under Article 92, when there is now an enumerated Article 134 offense for that offense.

112,401 Listeners

56,702 Listeners

14,234 Listeners

15,634 Listeners

29,245 Listeners

16,010 Listeners