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.
TDTNews reports that:
Major Hasan may not have been transferred from hospital yesterday as thought was planned.
Mr. Galligan’s chief complaint is a lack of a mitigation specialist assigned to the defense prior to the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.
Fox11.com reports that:
Major Hasan is on his way from hospital to Belton jail where he will be housed at an approximate cost of $206K.
He is wheelchair bound – question, is he a flight risk?
KWTX.com reports that:
Defense attorney John Galligan said Tuesday he’s asking the Army to delay the hearing that will determine whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be tried by a military court for the Nov. 5 shooting rampage at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center that left 13 dead and 29 injured.
MySAnews reports that:
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, charged in November’s shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead and 32 others wounded, will be moved from San Antonio to a county jail near the military post.
Bell County Sheriff Dan Smith issued a statement Monday, saying Bell County commissioners court formalized a contract with Fort Hood officials in preparation for receiving Hasan at the jail in Belton.
I commented yesterday that the decision by the Homeland Security Committee could be a potential boon to defense discovery in Major Hasan’s court-martial at Fort Hood.
Homeland Security committee begins collecting discovery for the Major Hasan defense team.
It’s not clear yet, but it looks like the Army and Department of Defense might also be about to do the same. One of the major issues that counsel have to pursue in death penalty cases at court-martial is the persons background. Besides the potential insanity issue on the merits, it is critical to develop as much of a personal history and background as possible. That means the defense will be requesting, and if they are smart, the government providing the expert assistance of a mitigation expert. The committee and potential Army actions will be of potential assistance to the defense. True, the investigations could develop something negative, but in this case that’s not something the defense needs to worry about at this stage. The defense needs information, the prosecution will try to stop or delay them getting it, so outside help is welcome.
A question arises for Major Hasan and the court-martial about venue or situs or trial at Fort Hood or somewhere else. Here is the general rule from R.C.M. 906(b)(11), for a change of venue of a court-martial:
United States v. Curtis was at one time a death penalty case, but not anymore as a result of post-trial actions. Here though is the court on change of venue:
Appellant argues that the defense counsel should have asked for a change of venue because of pretrial publicity. However, pretrial publicity standing alone, no matter how widespread, is not a sufficient reason for a change of venue. As will be discussed in Issue XV, the defense is not entitled to have such a motion granted unless it is shown that such publicity has permeated the panel members. In most instances a motion for a change of venue takes place after the voir dire. But "where there is a reasonable likelihood that prejudicial news prior to trial will prevent a fair trial, the judge should continue the case until the threat abates, or transfer it [**35] to another county…." Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 363, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600, 86 S. Ct. 1507 (1966). However, a showing of actual prejudice is usually necessary before a change of venue is granted. In this case the pretrial publicity had not so permeated the courtroom that the defense was left with promises of members to disregard what they might have heard.
So which CID agents are violating Article 92, UCMJ? And if they are lawyers on the government side, which lawyers are violating Article 92, UCMJ, and ethics rules for lawyers in the Army regarding pretrial publicity?
officials told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the case publicly.
Army Times.
Online Newshour reports:
And it doesn’t have to be all 12 members voting him guilty. Two-thirds to convict is enough. And it does have to be unanimous to give him the death penalty.
In a death penalty case the members have to be unanimous on a finding of guilty. The unanimity requirement different than for any other special and general court-martial.
This reminds me of A Few Good Men. Remember, in the Navy court-room the Army JAG symbol
is on the podium.
Well here they have a picture of courtroom A at Marine Camp Foster, Okinawa, Japan. We know the picture’s about a year old because the major pictured is now the head defense counsel in that same LSSS.
I think it unlikely the Army will move Hasan to Camp Foster for court-martial.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog