June MilJus calendar

1 June 2010: the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing ICO MAJ Nidal Malik Hasan is set to begin at Fort Hood. MAJ Hasan is in pretrial confinement therefore the Article 10, UCMJ, speedy trial clock applies.

On 26 May 2010, Mr. Galligan, MAJ Hasan’s civilian counsel posted this on his blog.

Today is the deadline, imposed by the Article 32 Investigating Officer, for Army prosecutors to respond to long outstanding Hasan Defense Team discovery requests. As of this posting – after COB at Fort Hood, Texas – no formal response from the prosecutors has been received. And, as readers are aware, the initial Article 32 session is scheduled for just several days hence.

It is not surprising that the neither the prosecution, nor for that matter the IO has responded to production requests under R.C.M. 405(f). This seems par for the course in many Article 32, UCMJ, investigations. Another interesting post is this.

For the past several months, the Hasan Defense Team has actively solicited the appointment and government funding for a mitigation specialist. Every step of the way, US Army prosecutors have resisted our efforts. Because all of the Defense nominees just happened to be licensed attorneys, Army prosecutors argued that we were trying to backdoor the retention of additional civilian counsel. Of course, that argument is ridiculous and overlooks the fact that many experts who also happen to be attorneys are routinely appointed as experts in military courts-martial. Moreover, they have served as expert witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution. And, more significantly, the position of Army prosecutors in the Hasan case is totally at odds with the fact that one of the defense nominees is now serving as a mitigation specialist in an ongoing court-martial at Fort Lewis (United States v. Davila). Apparently, the US Army does not speak or act with one voice on this important issue. 11 June 2010: the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing ICO LTC Lakin is set to begin at WRAMC. LTC Lakin is not in pretrial confinement but charges have been preferred. Therefore the R.C.M. 707 speedy trial requirement applies.

I agree with Mr. Galligan about experts who also have legal training. I have had cases, and currently have an Army case, in which one of our experts – a pathologist — is also a lawyer.

Post hearing: An Article 32, UCMJ, investigating officer is required to provide a written recommendation on charges and forum prior to further disciplinary actions or case disposition. A DD Form 457 with additional pages and attachments is used.

The Staff Judge Advocate is also required to provide a recommendation in accordance with Article 34, UCMJ.

The Army guide on the conduct of an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing is DA Pam. 27-17.