Courtesy of Army Times, here is a link to, “Fort Hood Army Internal Review Team: Final Report.”
MAJ Hasan’s UCMJ Article 32 hearing and likely court-martial is drawing and will continue to draw lots of attention — of course, duh. But just as we have seen in other high profile cases there are opportunities for what I call teachable moments. Here are two from the item posted by CAAFLog about the witness who was ordered to destroy a video of the shooting he made on his cellphone. Forget the rhetoric about whether or not the Army was engaged in a cover-up.
1. Contemporaneous video’s and photos can provide vital evidence for both sides.
Nixon said he remembered Hasan because of “his stature and just how he composed himself — stoic.”
Inside Bay Area has a piece about corruption in the California National Guard.
From 1986 until her retirement last year, Jaffe’s job with the California Army National Guard was to give away money — the federally subsidized student-loan repayments and cash bonuses — paid for by federal taxpayers nationwide — that the Guard is supposed to use to attract new recruits and encourage Guard members to re-enlist.
Instead, according to a Guard auditor turned federal whistle-blower, as much as $100 million has gone to soldiers who didn’t qualify for the incentives, including some who got tens of thousands of dollars more than the program allows.
Despite the political rhetoric LTC Lakin’s case has given us a number of teaching moments or opportunity to refresh on some basic practice principles.
1. Can LTC Lakin change lawyers at this stage. The answer in this case is probably yes. Although technically Mr. Jensen should submit a motion to be released and the new counsel file a notice of appearance.
2. Can LTC Lakin’s get a delay in the trial. Trial is currently set to begin 3 November 2010. The current docket is dated 6 October 2010. There is some question whether or not Neal Puckett or his other counsel are available because of the Wuterich trial ongoing. Also, there would be an issue of giving them an opportunity to prepare for trial. The answer to a continuance request in this case is probably yes, unless the prosecution can show an extraordinary adverse effect on their case by a delay.