The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals released its opinion in United States v. London last month. LCpl London was originally convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Quantico in 2021. He was sentenced to 65 months confinement and was sent to the brig on Camp Pendleton to serve this time. In February 2022, LCpl London became agitated because he believed that a brig guard had taken personal items from his cell. As the guard stood outside his cell smiling at him, LCpl London became angry, yelling at the guard to leave the area. When the guard did not leave, LCpl London spat at him. In October 2022, LCpl London was charged with several offenses for his conduct while in the Camp Pendleton brig, including assault for the spitting incident. The two sides began to negotiate a pretrial agreement, but in the meantime the defense filed two pretrial motions. One was to have the military judge appoint a forensic psychiatrist to examine LCpl London. The other was a request for the military judge to order a mental health examination under Rule for Courts-Martial 706.
A servicemember accused of a crime can raise the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility. If the accused can show clear and convincing evidence that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense that caused him to be unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his actions, he is not guilty of the charged offense. R.C.M. 706 establishes the procedure for evaluating an accused when questions concerning mental responsibility surface. An R.C.M. 706 inquiry into the accused’s mental health can be requested by anyone involved in the case–the commander, a preliminary hearing officer, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, or the military judge. Once an R.C.M. 706 inquiry is ordered, the accused is examined by one or more mental health professionals to determine: 1) whether or not the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect; 2) what that disease or defect is; 3) whether he was able to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his actions; and 4) whether the accused is currently suffering from any mental health concerns that would keep him from understanding the legal proceedings or assist in his defense.
The motions filed in LCpl London’s case included a medical record showing that a few weeks before the spitting incident, LCpl London was prescribed several mental health medications and was complaining of several issues, including anger issues. The motions also included an email from a forensic psychiatrist noting that the prescribed level of one of the medications was twice the normal amount and several articles noting the side effects of LCpl London’s medications, including instances of violence.
Ultimately, the Government and the defense came to a pretrial agreement and, in December 2022, LCpl London waived his previously filed motions and agreed to plead guilty to just the single assault charge from the spitting incident. Although the military judge was aware of the R.C.M. 706 motion, during her inquiry with LCpl London she did not ask him about his medications or his mental health at the time of the offense. The only mention of the mental responsibility concerns came when she discussed the plea agreement and LCpl London agreed that he was waiving the motions that had been previously filed. The military judge accepted his plea and found him guilty of assault. During the presentencing, LCpl London read a statement that discussed his medications, the high dosage, and the effects he felt from the medication, including irritability and anger. The military judge sentenced him to one month confinement.
In May 2023, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals overturned LCpl London’s involuntary manslaughter conviction, finding it to be factually insufficient. In December 2024, the Court set aside his guilty plea in the assault case. The Court determined that the military judge was aware that questions had been raised concerning LCpl London’s mental responsibility–first by the motions and their attached material and then by LCpl London’s presentencing statement. The Court found the judge’s failure to ask LCpl London or the defense counsel about his medications or the impact of those medications on the offense or to explain the affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility to LCpl London rendered his plea of guilty uninformed and his waiver of the R.C.M. 706 motion involuntary. The Court set aside the finding and sentence and authorized a rehearing in the case.
Mental responsibility is one of a host of defenses that may apply to a military criminal offense. If you or your loved one want to appeal a court-martial, you need someone with experience who knows what arguments to make on your behalf, and when to make them. I have argued this issue, and numerous others in front of appellate courts and CAAF. I have the experience you need. Please call Bill Cassara at (706) 860-5769 for a free consultation.