EPISODE · Oct 17, 2025 · 32 MIN
94 - How U.S. v. Casillas Clarifies (or Confuses) U.S. v. Mendoza.
from Litigator Libations
Send us Fan MailIn their debut episode as hosts, Sam and Trevor discuss the recent CAAF decision,United States v. Casillas, __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 692 (C.A.A.F. 2025). Casillas clarifies (or confuses?) the holding in United States v. Mendoza, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024), that cases charging a “without consent” theory of liability under Article 120, UCMJ, cannot be proven where the complaining witness is incapable of consenting, i.e., asleep or unconscious. Sam and Trevor also discuss a recent Navy CCA decision, United States v. Grafton, No. 202400055, 2025 LX 342911 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 11, 2025), that highlights some of the post-Mendoza influences (or problems?) in military justice practice. Before concluding, the duo briefly discuss instructional errors under Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, (1957). Questions, comments, concerns for the nerds? Email us at [email protected]!
What this episode covers
Send us Fan Mail In their debut episode as hosts, Sam and Trevor discuss the recent CAAF decision,United States v. Casillas, __ M.J. __, 2025 CAAF LEXIS 692 (C.A.A.F. 2025). Casillas clarifies (or confuses?) the holding in United States v. Mendoza, 85 M.J. 213 (C.A.A.F. 2024), that cases charging a “without consent” theory of liability under Article 120, UCMJ, cannot be proven where the complaining witness is incapable of consenting, i.e., asleep or unconscious. Sam and Trevor also discuss a ...
NOW PLAYING
94 - How U.S. v. Casillas Clarifies (or Confuses) U.S. v. Mendoza.
No transcript for this episode yet
Similar Episodes
Jun 25, 2026 ·54m
Jun 25, 2026 ·28m
Jun 24, 2026 ·69m