The News Tribune reports:

Col. Thomas Molloy found that Spc. Jeremy Morlock should be held accountable for any actions he might have committed. Molloy noted that Morlock was viewed by fellow soldiers “as an effective, reliable, engaged team leader,” rather than the picture painted by defense attorneys of a prescription drug-impaired soldier who was bullied by his squad leader.

The defense appears to be focused on two issues: fear of the squad leader and intimidation by him, and the issue of drugs, especially in regard to the supposed confession (some of which has been released to the public. See my post about unauthorized releases.)

Army Times has reported that,

They could face the death penalty if convicted.

Is there any information that the Army will in fact seek a death penalty referral? I had understood, perhaps wrongly, that the Army policy is to disclose that at the time of the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing and ask the IO to address that aspect of the disposition.

Interesting court order (thanks Oh For Goodness Sake) in a civilian case involving a retired Navy officer. Here are links to 10 U. S. Code Sec. 771, 772.

No. 08–1476. Dwight J. Loving, Petitioner v. Department of Defense, et al. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Page 183 here.

Joint Base Lewis-McChord spokeswoman Catherine Caruso says the pleas from Ivette G. Davila were accepted by the judge, Col. Stephen R. Henley, at Monday’s court martial. She was to be sentenced later in the day to life in prison.

Applying the Capital Jury Project Findings to Court-Martial Practice, Army CGSC, Fort Leavenworth, 11 June 2010.

Here is an official press release from JBLM.

Attorneys for a 3rd Infantry Division soldier accused of shooting two non-commissioned officers while all three men were deployed to Iraq in 2008 are asking a military judge to drop capital charges in a pending court-martial. They claim two aggravating circumstances surrounding the incident were not properly listed on the suspect’s initial charge sheet. [They] also asked Military Judge Col. Tara Osborn for five peremptory challenges against potential jury members in the capital court-martial proceedings.

Defense attorneys for Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, a Fort Hood psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a mass shooting here last fall, won a four-month delay Tuesday in an evidentiary hearing that could lead to his court-martial.

Sitting in the same courtroom where he oversaw proceedings for two infamous Abu Ghraib defendants, Col. James Pohl ruled in favor of the defense, which said it had not received all the documents it needed – including a ballistic trajectory report now being done by the FBI in Quantico, Va. “We got what we wanted,” said retired Army Col. John P. Galligan, lead counsel for Hasan.

Cannon fire will permeate the air over the PARC museum campus this weekend as forces from the Union and Confederate armies collide on the open fields. The Clinton County Historical Association will host the third-annual Plattsburgh Civil War Encampment, with two battles between the Blue and Gray scheduled for today and another slated for Sunday. Another new feature this year will be the court-martial of a Union soldier between today’s battles. Hewson said he did not know how that trial may turn out, but soldiers were often executed for betraying their colors during battle.

Speedy trial anticipated, ending with a flash in a pan.

And here’s a report from The Fort Scott Tribune:

The death of Private John Summers, Co. E, 2nd Kansas Volunteer Cavalry was the result of one of two public military executions in Fort Scott during the Civil War. Both of these executions were in May of 1863 and were very deliberately public in nature. Summer’s crime, for which he was convicted by a General Court Martial, was DESERTION! He didn’t desert from the Union army just once! He did it THREE times after which he was caught and brought to Fort Scott for his trial. How was this possible? Not only was Pvt. Summers a deserter he was also a “BOUNTY JUMPER!”

Note the timing:

Trial: 11 March 1863. CA action: 1 May 1863. Sentence carried out: 13 May 1863.

AP:

Stars & Stripes:

Army prosecutors have sent a notice that they plan to seek the death penalty against Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of the Fort Hood shootings, according to Hasan’s attorney, John Galligan. Galligan told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he received the notice outlining an aggravating factor — that more than one person was killed in the same incident. Military law experts say that’s the Army’s way of saying they plan to seek the death penalty, according to the AP report.

I saw a military jury convict Hennis on April 8 and sentence him to die Thursday[.] Hennis’ lawyer, Frank Spinner, said at the bottom of the courthouse steps that the jury never got to know his client, who did not testify. The jurors instead were treated to gruesome photos of the murder scene, he said.

That was Hennis’s choice. He was not required to testify. The members would have been instructed that they could not consider the declination to testify as evidence of guilt or hold it against him.

[T]he facts don’t help Hennis. First, he adopted a dog from a woman who was found murdered two days later. His bad luck. Second, a man who had never seen him before says he saw a man fitting Hennis’ description get into a white Chevrolet Chevette near the crime scene that night. The police sketch and Hennis’ mug shot are shockingly similar. Then, Hennis has no solid alibi for his whereabouts both times someone used Katie Eastburn’s stolen ATM card. A witness at the ATM described a tall man climbing out of a small, white car, like the kind of Chevette owned by the 6-foot-4 Hennis. A day after the murders, Hennis happened to take a single garment to be laundered, a Members Only jacket, like the kind a witness said the suspect near the scene had worn. Then, neighbors reported, he just happened to be burning items for hours in a barrel later that day. Beyond all that, there’s the DNA. There was maybe one place in the world where Hennis’ DNA could have been found that would have fatally undermined his version of events, and that’s where it was found – inside Katie Eastburn.

CAAFLog links to an interesting report of Mr. Eastburn’s reaction.

A military jury has sentenced a soldier to die for killing a North Carolina mother and her two children in 1985.

The jury left the courthouse at Fort Bragg about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday evening without a decision on a sentence for Hennis: life in prison or the death penalty. A death sentence requires a unanimous vote of all 14 jurors; a life sentence requires agreement from at least 11 of the jurors.

Hennis was convicted of premeditated murder, so it’s one or the other life or death. The paper seems to have picked up on the three-quarters vote needed for a sentence in excess of 10 years. In this case he’s already going to get life, the question is whether all 14 members will vote to terminate it.

Deliberations continue today.

Court recessed at 5:40 p.m. after the jury deliberated for more than two hours and also waited for the answer to three questions, including whether Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis would be eligible for parole if given a life sentence. Judge Col. Patrick Parrish told the jury that “life means life” and reminded jurors of his instructions to impose a sentence they view as fair. Before he answered the jurors’ questions, Parrish heard arguments about whether a life sentence would actually means life. While he agreed with the government that Hennis could receive parole, he also agreed with the defense that the chances of that were “slim and none,” given the 52-year-old Hennis’ age and the nature of the crimes. He agreed that the defense had opened the door to the question with its closing argument that jurors knew Hennis would at least spend life behind bars. He declined to answer the question with any specifics, however, saying the various answers had too many permutations. He did say that he would consider any further arguments when deliberations are scheduled to resume Wednesday morning.

The family of a former Fort Bragg soldier convicted of killing a Fayetteville woman and two small children in 1985 on Monday begged a military jury not to sentence him to death for the crimes. The panel of 14 Army officers and enlisted personnel last week found Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis guilty of three counts of premeditated murder and is considering his sentence.

Some interesting video attached to this.

Army Times reports:

Defense attorneys have rested their case in the sentencing of a soldier convicted of murder in the slayings of a North Carolina mother and two of her daughters.

The former Coast Guard Sector Anchorage Commander was awarded the maximum allowable punishment at an Admiral’s Mast Friday and will retire on July 1 in the grade of lieutenant with a general discharge in lieu of trial by a general court-martial. Capt. Herbert M. Hamilton, III, was relieved of command in May 2009. An investigation conducted by the Coast Guard Investigative Service revealed that Hamilton had inappropriate relationships with several women, including officer and enlisted Coast Guard members, and civilians, over a period of more than 13 years. Hamilton also was charged with misusing government computers and cell phones; making false official statements; and soliciting an enlisted member to destroy evidence. His retirement as a lieutenant in lieu of trial by a general court-martial is the result of a pretrial agreement and Hamilton’s unsatisfactory service in the grades of captain, commander, and lieutenant commander.

Thanks to cgblog.org.

2. Hennis. I’m sure you are now aware that Hennis was convicted of three premeditated murder charges in less than three hours of deliberation. The sentencing part of the trial began today.

Military jurors began sentencing hearings Friday to determine if a soldier convicted of murder in the slayings of a North Carolina mother and her two children will get the death penalty or life in prison.

Here’s another interesting take on the prosecution of Hennis by an editor who believes he’s guilty.

WRAL.com has this “victim impact” information about the Hennis case.

3. Hasan has now arrived at Belton County Jail where he will likely stay until he is sentenced.

Maj. Nidal Hasan was airlifted from a San Antonio military hospital to the Bell County Jail in Belton about 4 a.m. Friday. He had been at the military hospital since shortly after the Nov. 5 shooting spree that left him paralyzed.

4. A fraud through faked service:

A man who falsely claimed a chestful of military medals was sentenced to a year in prison and was ordered to repay $11,098 in veterans benefits he shouldn’t have received. Thomas Barnhart, 59, had 21 years of legitimate Navy and Coast Guard service, including offshore duty in Vietnam. But starting in 1979, he began inflating his experience in claims for promotions and benefits, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jake Jacobsen told U.S. District Judge James Turk today in Roanoke.

5. You may have been following the issue of DoD wanting to shut down WikiLeaks, and in particular the issue of a recently released video of an Apache helicopter attack. Political Theatrics has this post.

Wikileaks released a 17-minute video on April 5th which depicted an Apache helicopter opening fire on a group of innocent Iraqi’s in New Baghdad in 2007; two of those killed were Reuters Journalists carrying their camera bags over their shoulders – Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22 and Saeed Chmagh, 40. On Monday evening, the Pentagon acknowledged and verified the legitimacy of the video.

Consortiumnews.com has another article on this subject.

Not only did a U.S. military helicopter gunship mow them down amid macho jokes and chuckling – after mistaking a couple of cameras for weapons – but the American attackers then blew away several Iraqis who arrived in a van and tried to take one of the wounded newsmen to a hospital. Two children in the van were badly wounded. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle,” one American remarked.

6. Capital Flyer has more dire warnings on the career impact of a DUI.

7. FayObserver has this piece on the Pernell Article 32, UCMJ, hearing ongoing at Fort Bragg.

A Fort Bragg soldier accused of a rape and break-ins on post told an investigator he heard a voice in his head called Jason that told him to do “bad things,” according to testimony at an Article 32 hearing.

A military jury has found Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis guilty of three specifications of pre-meditated murder. The members of the court-martial panel returned with their verdict about 10:35 a.m. They had deliberated for two hours and 45 minutes over Wednesday and today

Hasan’s lawyer claims the U.S. Army is withholding key information he needs to defend Hasan. Attorney John Galligan said he has been waiting months for classified material needed to help his client. He said he has been given limited access to criminal investigation files.

Does Mr. Galligan have the appropriate security clearance? If not, that would be a reason for a withholding of classified material.

Has Mr. Galligan submitted his SF 86 and other required documents to obtain a clearance? According to Galligan, Hasan is paralyzed and hasn’t left Brooke Army Medical Center because officials still have not decided where he should be put next.

WOAI’s Kristina De Leon asked Galligan why and how he could defend Hasan?

“For the same reason I can defend a soldier who’s accused of killing detainees in Afghanistan,” responded Galligan.

Good answer! Like it or not regulatory and constitutional rights are not dependent (completely) on who you are but what you are accused of and the process that is being followed.

Following a two-week absence, the Fort Hood attorney was back at it Friday despite a gag order, blogging on the perceived injustices suffered by his defense team in defending Major Nidal Hasan, the man charged in the shooting deaths of 13 people.

As previously reported by The Daily Caller, John P. Galligan, Hasan’s civilian defense attorney, made waves in the legal community when he launched the high-profile blog to highlight his obstacles in defending the case. The blog was silent for nearly two weeks after the initial controversy erupted, but he’s back, saying: “My blog will continue to highlight how my client is being unfairly treated.”

In my personal opinion, I don’t think it’s a good idea for the attorney representing the specific accused to be blogging about the ongoing case, even though I don’t know of any authority of an Article 32, UCMJ, appointing authority to issue a gag-order to defense counsel – and I include military counsel here.

However, I am also of the belief that the government should also face a gag order. It is patently unfair for the prosecution and government to have the unrestricted ability to issue press statements and information – which may contain wrong or inflammatory information — or for politicians to be doing the same, and at the same time restrict the defense.

Mr. Galligan says:

“I believe I’m operating in a very, very unique environment, I’m representing a client in a potential court martial process, where there is no judge — I’m still operating in a command driven environment … where everybody from the commander-in-chief on down has already commented on this case and condemned my client.” “I’m not disclosing anything, my client is getting screwed! How do you think you’d feel when you wake up every day and see on MSNBC or Fox news a tour of your client’s home? Do I have to get a press badge to get that kind of access?! … I’ve gotten more out of the press than I’ve gotten out of the military,” says Galligan.

Perhaps the government should begin to exercise some good judgment and have “no comment,” if for no other reason than to avoid litigating unconstitutionally prejudicial pretrial publicity.

If Mr. Galligan is correct that the Government Representative (there is no trial counsel at an Article 32, UCMJ, stage. See R.C.M. 405(d)(3)(a),) and the Investigating Officer aren’t providing required information, R.C.M. 405(f)(10) ought to be invoked at some point. IMHO that rule is actually broader than R.C.M. 701 and does require the government to seek out and provide information. As to the mitigation expert, well perhaps R.C.M. 405(f)(11) applies. I know it is routine for the government to deny expert assistance pretrial including at an Article 32, UCMJ, stage, but . . . If they are interested in a speedy trial, as they’ve said, why wait until referral (as if referral ain’t gonna happen) which is months away. Without the mitigation expert how can the defense develop information for submission under R.C.M. 405.