2008(Transition)
United
States v. Mackie, 66 M.J. 198 (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).
2002
United
States v. Chapa, 57 MJ 140 (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
United
States v. Simpson,
54 MJ 281 (the government has the burden of establishing
compliance with rights warning requirements by a preponderance of the
evidence).
2000
(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).