Here’s a link to audio of AFCCA’s quite interesting 15 March argument in United States v. Narula, No. ACM 37658.  Here are the issues that were argued:

I.  WHETHER THE CHARGES OTHER THAN CHARGE I:  ARTICLE 120 AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED TO AVOID PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT.

III.  WHETHER THERE WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL DUE TO FAILURE TO FILE A MOTION TO SEVER THE OTHER CHARGES FROM THE TRIAL OF CHARGE I, ARTICLE 120 AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT AND FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT CREATING IMPERMISSIBLE SPILLOVER.

IV.  WHETHER THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CHARGE I:  AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO NEGATE THE DEFENSES OF CONSENT AND MISTAKE OF FACT AS TO CONSENT.

Comments are closed.