Military Defense
Accused Fort Hood Gunman Plans to Represent Himself in Military Trial
The military trial of a former Army psychiatrist accused of opening fire on a group of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas is currently delayed until the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, decides on whether or not to allow the accused to fire his own lawyers and represent himself in court. According to NBC News, the suspect could face the death penalty if he is convicted of killing 13 soldiers and injuring 32 in the 2009 shooting rampage.
Under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the judge will have little choice but to allow the suspect’s request, unless he is found incompetent following a court-ordered physical examination.
Trial Continues with Increased Burden in Military WikiLeaks Case
The trial of an Army private accused of providing highly classified information to the information sharing website WikiLeaks is continuing with new stipulations for prosecutors. As reported by The New York Times, the presiding judge in the WikiLeaks trial ruled during a pretrial that prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has reason to believe that the files he allegedly supplied to WikiLeaks could harm the United States or aid another country.
Should this be found, the man could be found guilty of violating the Espionage Act. Prosecutors had wanted to have the ability to find him guilty by proving that he “willfully disclosed defense-related files.”
Court Martial Split Rejected in Case of Brigadier General
A military judge recently denied a request to split the court martial of a Brigadier General that would see the case subjected to two trials. According to The Fay Observer, the defendant, a former deputy commanding general of the 82nd Airborne Division, faces misconduct, adultery, and forcible sodomy allegations.
The man has been accused of having an affair and allegedly partaking in wrongful sexual conduct with several women who were working under his command. The attorney representing the Brig. General argued that the charges relating to the man that supposedly forced a female captain, with whom he had allegedly engaged in a multi-year affair, to perform oral sex should be only one trial. The rest of the charges of sexual misconduct and fraud would be tried in a separate case.
Review Ordered for Ruling Allowing Overrule of Court Martial Convictions
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has ordered a review of the rules that let military commanders to overrule court martial convictions that have come from military juries. The decision is a result of a recent decision by an Air Force general to throw out a jury conviction for aggravated sexual assault against an F-16 fighter pilot, according to ABC News.
The man had been convicted of assault on a base in Italy, but the base’s Inspector General threw out the conviction and reinstated him with a clear record. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military convictions go to the case’s convening authority, which is a commander, for the final action.
Court Case against Soldier Accused of WikiLeaks Connection Moves Forward
The Judge presiding over the Military Trial of a U.S. soldier accused of being a WikiLeaks source has decided that the defendant was brought to trial in good time, ruling against the defense’s claim that his right to a speedy trial had been violated. As reported by USA Today, the soldier had been awaiting trial while in military custody for more than 1,000 days, an anniversary that brought hundreds of protesters to hold events across the world.
The accused Army private admitted to having sent state documents to the website WikiLeaks, which had originally caused him to be put in pre-trial confinement on May 28, 2010 when he was arrested at an Iraq Army base outside of Baghdad. While trials are supposed to begin within 120 days of detainment, there are various excusable delays that can extend the time period, which the judge declared had been met in the lengthy delay of the trial.
What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” Under Military Law?
Those serving in any branch of the United States military are held up to a high standard that requires obedient service and obligations that are not present in many other people’s lives. Often, actions taken by military members deemed as crimes would not be seen as such if committed by civilians. Members of the military may be charged with committing “high crimes and misdemeanors” if they have violated the rules, acted against the country, or committed various crimes in the line of duty.
But what exactly does this term mean?
The term originates from Section Four, Article Two of the U.S. Constitution, which states that civil officers of the country can be impeached when convicted of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The idea of a “high crime” comes from the terms used during the 17th and 18th centuries. Those who have special duties that are not shared by common people due to taking an oath of office for a political position can commit a high crime. “Misdemeanors” is often taken to be a smaller offense, but one that still violates military law and work against the country as a whole.
Soldier Accused of Afghan Village Massacre Arraigned by U.S. Military Court
A U.S. Army Staff Sergeant has been charged with the murder of 16 people, including nine children, in two villages in Afghanistan, according to NBC News. He was arraigned on Thursday, January 17, 2013 at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington State. Military judge Colonel Jeffrey Nance is hearing the case.
The Army Staff Sergeant is accused of leaving a remote outpost in Afghanistan, on his own, after drinking with other soldiers on March 11, 2012 and proceeding to go on a rampage, killing 16 people in nearby villages. Prosecutors claim that the Sergeant did this alone and acted with “chilling premeditation,” having gone to the villages armed with a rifle, pistol, and grenade launcher. He allegedly went back to the military outpost where he told another soldier that he “shot up some people” before heading to the second village.
The Differences between the 3 Types of Military Court-Martial
The military judicial system, though still part of the federal government, has a procedure of its own in order to handle the unique circumstances under which crimes may have been committed in the course of military duty. When a military service member is accused of committing a crime, they may be subjected to one of three types of military court-marital to determine their innocence or guilt and to receive punishment. These three types are:
- Summary Courts-Martial
- Special Courts-Martial
- General Courts-Martial
The type of offense generally determines the type of court-martial and possible punishments.
Presenting a Strong Defense at Your Article 32 Hearing
Military men and women devote their lives to serving their country and experience an inordinate amount of stress and pressure while doing so. Long periods of time away from home, living in a constant state of anxiety over unpredictable tasks or missions, and witnessing violence and death all take their toll. Military service members do the best they can while on active duty, but sometimes their actions are frowned upon by others, leading to potential court-martial. But military service members, just like civilians, have rights.
According to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), no military service member may be referred to a general court-martial without first having the right to a hearing where the facts of the case against them are presented after an impartial and thorough investigation into the alleged offense. This hearing is not only to hear the arguments brought against a military service member, however, it is also held in order to provide an opportunity for the accused to present evidence on their behalf.
Understanding the Administrative Separation Process
Under certain circumstances, an involuntary administrative separation action may be taken against a military service member, which means that they are being fired from military service. Reasons for administrative separation may include, but are not limited to, criminal conduct, pattern of misconduct, or failure to maintain physical requirements. Regardless of why, administrative separation can have serious consequences for military service members, such as the ending of a person’s career and income, as well as the potential loss of any benefits.
When a military service member is recommended for administrative separation, they may first participate in a formal counseling session where their deficiencies are discussed. They may be given a reasonable period of time to correct those deficiencies before action is actually taken to remove them from military service. If it is determined that separation is necessary, that member will be discharged under Honorable, General under Honorable, or Other than Honorable (OTH) conditions. How you are discharged makes a difference.