63 - US v McNulty (NMCCA); US v. Csiti (AFCCA); and Expanded Appellate Rights

In today's episode we discuss U.S. v. McNulty, which involved a claim of IAC based on defense counsel not seeking an R.C.M. 706 inquiry, A.K.A., a sanity board.  The claim fails but the case gives us an opportunity to discuss the issues of lack of mental responsibility and mental capacity.  We also discuss an AFCCA case (U.S. v. Csiti), which demonstrates the further degradation of appellate rights under the changes to Article 66, which now limits the scope of the CCA's factual sufficiency review.  Finally, we hear from Major Frederick Johnson on things you need to know when representing clients who may remain on active duty pending the appellate resolution of their case.

Chapters

• 1:42 United States v. McNulty
• 16:46 United States v. Csiti (Judge Advocate vs. Attorney)
• 18:59 United States v. Csiti (Factual Sufficiency)
• 24:50 Clients with pending appeals
• 29:05 Outro