- a military judge has the authority to order a sanity board after referral under RCM 706 if it appears there is reason to believe the accused lacked mental responsibility at the time of a charged offense or lacks the capacity to stand trial; a motion for a sanity board should normally be granted if it is made in good faith and is not frivolous
CAAF Opinion Digest · III.F.3 · Motions, Generally
Burden
5 digested opinions, 1999–2008 Terms
2008 (Transition Term)
2002
- the defense bears the burden of raising an issue of compliance with any of the procedures addressed in RCM 305 by making a motion that specifically focuses the attention of trial participants on the alleged shortcoming
2001
- the government has the burden of establishing compliance with rights warning requirements by a preponderance of the evidence
2000
- an accused who either alleges severance of an attorney-client relationship or seeks to invoke such a relationship for purposes of supporting an individual military counsel request must first demonstrate that, at the time of the request, the accused had a viable ongoing attorney-client relationship regarding the substance of the charges at issue; the accused must show a bilateral understanding on the part of both the attorney and the client as to the nature of the services to be provided
1999
- threshold for raising unlawful command influence at trial is low: the accused must show facts which, if true, constitute unlawful command influence, and that the alleged unlawful command influence has a logical connection to the court-martial, in terms of its potential to cause unfairness in the proceedings
- once unlawful command influence is raised, the burden shifts to the government to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, either that there was no unlawful command influence or that the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings, and the government may meet that burden by: (1) disproving the predicate facts upon which the allegation of unlawful command influence is based; (2) persuading the military judge or appellate court that the facts do not constitute unlawful command influence; (3) producing, at trial, evidence proving that the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings; or (4) by persuading an appellate court on appeal that the unlawful command influence had no prejudicial impact on the court-martial
Source and status
This is a verbatim mirror of the Opinion Digest and opinions tables published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The headnotes are the court staff’s summaries of the opinions, reproduced as published; they are not the opinions themselves and not this site’s commentary. Nothing here is edited on this site.
Last updated by the court: Oct 13, 2026 · mirrored Oct 29, 2026 · digest page IIIF3 · Always confirm a holding against the opinion itself (linked from each case name).