ACCA has decided United States v. Kloch.
The accused wanted to tell the military judge in his unsworn that several of his co-accused’s had received 15 days confinement at summary court-martial, etc. The MJ would not allow the statement. ACCA found error, but that it was non-prejudicial.
An official news release from Fort Hood PAO states that:
The charges filed against Hasan include 13 specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice, (emphasis added).
hat-tip to CAAFLog. The media has been speculating all afternoon based on a CID news conference. I would not imagine CID to be a spokesperson for the Article 32, UCMJ, appointing authority, and if it’s CID, I’d want to see it in writing. One suspects CID is wanting a little face time with the public. CID investigates, they don’t decide what charges will be preferred.
Here’s the question, I think.
Military.com, as with many other media outlets are reporting:
Nidal Malik Hasan’s overly zealous religious views and strange behavior worried the doctors overseeing his medical training, but they saw no evidence that he was violent or a threat.
Thanks to SCOTUSBlog here is a link to a new Supreme Court research tool.
The Supreme Court Database is the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Database contains over two hundred pieces of information about each case decided by the Court between the 1953 and 2008 terms. Examples include the identity of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed, the parties to the suit, the legal provisions considered in the case, and the votes of the Justices.
The CGCCA has issued a decision in the court-martial: United States v. Montuoro. A short sweet reminder of sentence comparison issues when there are co-accused’s. Sentence comparison among co-accused’s is a different issue than sentence appropriateness.
Yes, of course John Galligan is getting that question. We get it all the time. How could you represent so-and-so at court-martial? Here is MichaelTomasky’sBlog.
Banner CNN day: Wolf Blitzer apparently really distinguished himself yesterday by asking Nidal Hasan’s military lawyer, retired Colonel John Galligan, how on earth he could do such a thing[?]
Many in the legal community are critical of President Obama, who as the Commander-in-Chief may have “screwed up” the prosecution of Major Hasan for his acts at Fort Hood.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
The only good news out of the Fort Hood massacre is that U.S. electronic surveillance technology was able to pick up Major Hasan’s phone calls to an al Qaeda-loving imam in Yemen. The bad news is the people and agencies listening to Hasan didn’t know what to do about it. Other than nothing.
The other bad news may be that a number of politicians, particularly Hoekstra, having been disclosing this information to the public. No wonder the CIA and other agencies are suspicious of giving “delicate” shall we say information to Congress.
I’m not sure why, but it seems the Air Force must have a checklist of annual warnings. The official website makes one about prescription drugs, entitled: Prescription meds: Proceed with caution. The caution advises that misuse of prescription medications can result in disciplinary action, including court-martial.
When Airmen ignore inspecting their medicine cabinets they risk possible damage to their careers and, more importantly, can jeopardize their health.
This becomes a problem later if Airmen take prescribed medications after the prescription has expired.
WESH2.com reports:
A former astronaut pleaded to a lesser charge and avoided jail time for attacking a romantic rival in Orlando on Tuesday, but she could still face military prosecution.
Navy captain Nowak will be awaiting a letter from the Chief of Naval Personnel (connected with show-cause board actions), or the Secretary of the Navy (authorizing prosecution at court-martial). If she is allowed to retire then there will be a retirement grade determination for retirement as a commander (O-5).
If Major Hasan raises an insanity defense for his acts at Fort Hood, how might the defense actually work if at all.
Presumably he will present a combination of witnesses and documents. The media is reporting that prior to reporting to Fort Hood Major Hasan had “problems” so there will be witnesses to odd or strange behavior; there will be witnesses to the nature of his work and whether he could suffer vicarious traumatization; and there will be other witnesses to how he behaved. Then there may well be psychological testimony.
Here is a link to the Digest for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF): “Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility.”
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
