Who has the hardest job in the prosecution and defense of Major Hasan, by that I’m talking about the lawyers and the judge.
As many have already observed, the merits portion of Major Hasan’s trial at Fort Hood is likely a done deal, except for the potential mental health issues. I would even argue that it’s not necessary to know why Major Hasan killed a lot of innocent people in a very public way. There are 14 dead (I’m including the fetus) and a score or so physically injured. There are witnesses and apparently the weapon(s) have been found. The police officer who shot him can testify to chain of custody. With that evidence presented to the Members, who needs to know his motive to convict. A group of five to seven live witnesses can testify to victim impact, and have lots of letters standing by. Perhaps get some making a very simple video statement.
The elephant in the room will be his motive regardless of any evidence that he was or tried to associate with terrorists. With all of the media attention this case has and will continue to have, does anybody not understand and believe that regardless of what you tell the Members they will be thinking about what happened and why. That means you don’t need to present evidence of motive. Trying to prove Major Hasan is a terrorist or has terrorist ties isn’t going to aggravate the case any more than it is for a conviction and death penalty sentence. And it’s a conviction and sentence that will stick and not having to spend a long time in appellate review that people want and need.