U.S. v. Best, 61 M.J. 376

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility

1. RCM 706 sanity board proceedings are not judicial in nature, purpose, or effect; they are entirely administrative; as an administrative board, whose members are typically appointed by a medical commander and not by the convening authority, and whose findings do not bind the court-martial in its determination of either competence or mental responsibility, such a board cannot be analogized to a court of members
2. RCM 706 does not address professional conflicts of interest for sanity board members
3. RCM 706 does not contain a per se exclusion of mental health practitioners who may have previously diagnosed or treated an accused from participating on that accused’s sanity board
4. an actual conflict of interest exists if a psychotherapist’s prior participation materially limits his or her ability to objectively participate in and evaluate the subject of an RCM 706 sanity board
5. prior involvement between the accused and a psychologist and a psychiatrist who served as members of the accused’s RCM 706 sanity board did not give rise to an actual conflict of interest where neither was the accused’s psychotherapist and neither did more than a brief assessment, followed in some cases by referral to those who could diagnose the accused offer him treatment