I posted on Hennis just the other day in terms of one reporters view of the weight of the evidence.
Crime & Consequences picks up on a point.
Myron Pitts, who covered the Hennis trial for the Fayetteville Observer, has this article summing up the evidence. The whole story is worth a read, but my favorite line is this:
SCOTUSBlog reports that:
At about 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in City of Ontario, et al., v. Quon, et al. (08-1332). Arguing for the California city and its police department will be Kent L. Richland of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in Los Angeles. The federal government, represented by Deputy Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal, will have 10 minutes as amicus urging reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court decision. Representing four individuals who sued the city will be Dieter C. Dammeier of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill in Upland, CA.
The ubiquitous personal electronic device — pager, cellphone, “smart phone,” PDA — is emerging as a centerpiece in Digital Age legal controversy, including constitutional disputes when a government agency gets involved in regulating the use of these convenient computer-assisted, hand-held items. The Supreme Court has taken on a case to lay down some basic constitutional ground rules on when the users of those devices — at least in government workplaces — can claim a right of privacy, and sue to enforce the right
Here is another viewpoint, from a civilian, about the need to court-martial LTC Lakin.
The (Greeley, CO) Tribune opinion says:
When you become a soldier of the United States of America, you lose some of your rights.
Except in extreme cases, you no longer have the right to refuse orders of superiors. You don’t have the same freedom of speech that other Americans enjoy. You serve at the pleasure of your commander in chief.
Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, while exercising rights that many Americans enjoy, now needs to suffer the consequences for his actions. He has violated the requirements of his office.
I expect we’ll see several commentary’s about the Hennis trial. Here is one from Myron Pitts, FayObserver.com, which he calls, “Evidence adds up in support of Hennis verdict.” (Along with the article is a great list of links to prior reporting on the case.)
I saw a military jury convict Hennis on April 8 and sentence him to die Thursday[.]
Hennis’ lawyer, Frank Spinner, said at the bottom of the courthouse steps that the jury never got to know his client, who did not testify. The jurors instead were treated to gruesome photos of the murder scene, he said.
Stars & Stripes and others are reporting that:
DoD is starting to announce new policies that may go into effect because of the inquiry into Major Hasan. I expect two will cause some heartburn:
More restrictive policy regarding weapons on base, including in quarters. I expect there will an initial uptick in Second Amendment related complaints.
Washington Post reports that:
A military jury has sentenced a soldier to die for killing a North Carolina mother and her two children in 1985.
FayObserver notes the issue yesterday where the members wanted answers about parole should he be sentenced to life. I found this piece odd.
The jury left the courthouse at Fort Bragg about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday evening without a decision on a sentence for Hennis: life in prison or the death penalty. A death sentence requires a unanimous vote of all 14 jurors; a life sentence requires agreement from at least 11 of the jurors.
Hennis was convicted of premeditated murder, so it’s one or the other life or death. The paper seems to have picked up on the three-quarters vote needed for a sentence in excess of 10 years. In this case he’s already going to get life, the question is whether all 14 members will vote to terminate it.
There are good reasons that the military should be apolitical in public, and as political as it wants in the voting booth.
Politics Daily reports:
The Army will court martial a lieutenant colonel who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan because he won’t accept orders from President Obama, whom he considers unqualified to be commander in chief, military officials said Wednesday.
GiveUsLiberty blog has this piece.
Hopefully Mr. Apuzzo has a similar depth of knowledge about the UCMJ, R.C.M., and Military Rules of Evidence, to his knowledge of constitutional law. Or will he dump that on learned military counsel, that’s another part of Article 38, UCMJ.
This comment evidences a lack of understanding of chain of command issues and the Rules of who does what and how it is done.
CAAFLog has pointed to this CentralTexasNow.com report.
Bell County Jail, it’s where the man charged with the Fort Hood massacre, Nidal Hasan, is now being held. Inside the jail infirmary, under 24 hour surveillance, and his lawyer doesn’t like it.
"He is, in short, being punished. In violation I believe of article 13 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And it’s deliberate, it’s conscious and it’s intentional," John Galligan says.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog