Source: https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resources/defenses-special-defenses-defenses/miscellaneous-defenses.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:56:51+00:00

Document:
Amnesia, however, is, by itself, generally “a relatively neutral circumstance in its bearing on criminal responsibility.” United States v. Olvera, 15 C.M.R. 134 (C.M.A. 1954); see generally United States v. Boultinghouse, 29 C.M.R. 537 (C.M.A. 1960); United States v. Buran, 23 M.J. 736 (A.F.C.M.R. 1986); United States v. Barreto, 57 M.J. 127 (C.A.A.F. 2002).
Military offenses requiring knowledge of accused’s status as a service person.
An accused cannot be convicted of AWOL if he was temporarily without knowledge that he was in the military during the period of his alleged absence. See United States v. Wiseman, 30 C.M.R. 724 (N.B.R. 1961).
Lack of memory or amnesia resulting from drugs or alcohol has never constituted a complete defense. United States v. Luebs, 43 C.M.R. 315 (C.M.A. 1971); United States v. Butler, 43 C.M.R. 87 (C.M.A. 1971); United States v. Day, 33 C.M.R. 398 (C.M.A. 1963).
In United States v. Lopez-Malave, 15 C.M.R. 341 (C.M.A. 1954), the Court held that drug or alcohol induced amnesia in and of itself does not constitute a mental disease or defect which will excuse criminal conduct under the defense of lack of mental responsibility.
Where the amnesia appears to be temporary, an appropriate solution might be to defer trial for a reasonable period to see if the accused’s memory improves.
A pretrial determination of whether the defendant’s amnesia will deny him a fair trial is not always possible. In such a case, the trial judge may make a determination of fairness after trial with appropriate findings of fact and rulings concerning the relevant criteria.
In United States v. Luebs, 43 C.M.R. 315 (C.M.A. 1971); the Court held that an accused who fails to recall the factual basis of the offenses but is satisfied from the evidence that he is guilty may plead guilty. See also United States v. Butler, 43 C.M.R. 87 (C.M.A. 1971).
While courts have concluded that seizures attendant to epilepsy provide a basis for a defense, other types of unconsciousness or automatism have been rejected as bases for a defense. In United States v. Rooks, 29 M.J. 291 (C.M.A. 1989), the Court held that seizures attendant to epilepsy may render the accused unable to form the mens rea required for assault. On the other hand, in United States v. Campos, 37 M.J. 894 (A.C.M.R. 1993), aff’d, 42 M.J. 253 (C.A.A.F. 1995), the Court found that evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of offenses of willfully disobeying and assaulting an NCO, despite the defendant’s contention that he lacked required mens rea due to automatic and uncontrollable behavior brought on by claustrophobia.
In United States v. Axelson, 65 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2007), the Court concluded that the defendant’s plea to aggravated assault was knowing and no additional instructions on defenses were required because aggravated assault is a general intent crime to which partial mental responsibility is not a defense. In addition, automatism is not a defense under R.C.M. 916 or other case law.
In United States v. Lanier, 117 S.Ct. 1219 (1997), the Court determined that the benchmark of the fair warning requirement is whether the statute made it reasonably clear at the relevant time that defendant’s conduct was criminal.
In United States v. Argo, 46 M.J. 454 (C.A.A.F. 1997), the Court found that the defendant was not subjected to selective or vindictive prosecution in regard to handling or adultery allegations, though charges were not preferred against two others alleged to have committed adultery, where charges were preferred against the defendant only after he violated a “no-contact” order.
In United States v. Hardy, 46 M.J. 67 (C.A.A.F. 1997), because there is no right to jury nullification, the Court did not err either in declining to give a nullification instruction or in declining to otherwise instruct the members that they had the power to nullify his instructions on matters of law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.