This case has come before this Court for the second time. See United States v. Navarette, 79 M.J. 123 (C.A.A.F. 2019). During the lengthy appellate process, Appellant has sought a Rule for Courts-Martial [R.C.M.] 706 inquiry to investigate his mental status. Originally and upon remand from this Court, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) found that Appellant failed to raise a substantial question as to his mental condition. We disagree and reverse. Writes Senior Judge Stucky for three members of the court. Judges Maggs and Hardy dissented.
Bill Cassara
8/11/2021 01:21:01 pm
Putting aside the legal issues, I have to wonder why the Army would fight so hard against this kid, who obviously has serious mental health issues.
Donald G Rehkopf, Jr.
8/11/2021 04:16:40 pm
Bill, as Bob Dylan wrote, "The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind. . . ."
Tami a/k/a Princess Leia
8/12/2021 06:35:25 pm
@BillCassara, because it's sexual assault, and that is what the Army does--fight, fight, fight. But not as much as the Air Force.
Bill Cassara
8/13/2021 10:39:01 am
Princess Leia: Says it is a drug case, making it even more confounding. Comments are closed.
|
Links
CAAF -Daily Journal -Current Term Opinions ACCA AFCCA CGCCA NMCCA Joint R. App. Pro. Global MJ Reform LOC Mil. Law Army Lawyer Resources Categories
All
Archives
April 2022
|
