Behenna update

CAAFLog has this case among the Top-10 for 2009.

Vicki Behenna has 10 minutes to plead her son’s case.  

Where does she begin?

In the last few months, she has developed hours of arguments about why U.S. Army 1st Lt. Michael Behenna was wrongly convicted of killing a suspected terrorist in Iraq in 2008, why his 20-year sentence for unpremeditated murder was too severe compared to other sentences for the same offense and why the military rules for detaining suspected terrorists make no sense in a combat zone.

She will have to condense all that into a matter of minutes when she appears Thursday before the Army Clemency and Parole Board in Arlington, Va.

Reports NewsOK.

Having done hearings at the Army Clemency & Parole Board I am not sure that the Board will hold her exactly to the ten minutes.  True, such presentations need to be clear, concise, and tailored.  But in my experience the board members, including Mr. Vick from time to time will have pertinent questions.  And there will be some leeway to make sure a point is made and understood.

Here is a link to Band of Mothers referenced in the piece.  And here is the link to the Behenna website.

Posted in:

3 responses to “Behenna update”

  1. Viking says:

    Here is the link to Mott., R.R. 20200900115UNPUB.pdf

    I agree, they should follow how Mott was resolved, the issue will be how they resolve the harmless beyond reasonable doubt issue.
    In both cases it seems especially pertinent that it is the government’s own expert who is positing the information helpful to the defense.

  2. The Straw that stirs the drink says:

    If ACCA considers and agrees with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals case Mott, No. 200900115 that was decided back in November (unpublished) – they will toss the conviction.

    I’ll be curious to see what they do with the Brady issue and the prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument (based on Brady and candor to the tribunal).

  3. The Itch that cannot be reached says:

    The question that bites that if the evidence did not change the verdict (which on its face it would), it surely would have been a lesser sentence.

    I also expect an interesting question on the jury instruction of the accused’s acts that would negate self-defense. In CONUS, PVT Snuffy pulls a gun first, guy goes for it, shot fired, and a death to victim. No question, that Snuffy created the situation.

    Where it gets interesting is if this happens in a combat zone where guns are normal and having them drawn is not unexpected. I think the court has to take into consideration that stock jury instruction from the judge’s benchbook does not fit in a combat zone.

Contact Information