WESH2.com reports:
A former astronaut pleaded to a lesser charge and avoided jail time for attacking a romantic rival in Orlando on Tuesday, but she could still face military prosecution.
Navy captain Nowak will be awaiting a letter from the Chief of Naval Personnel (connected with show-cause board actions), or the Secretary of the Navy (authorizing prosecution at court-martial). If she is allowed to retire then there will be a retirement grade determination for retirement as a commander (O-5).
If Major Hasan raises an insanity defense for his acts at Fort Hood, how might the defense actually work if at all.
Presumably he will present a combination of witnesses and documents. The media is reporting that prior to reporting to Fort Hood Major Hasan had “problems” so there will be witnesses to odd or strange behavior; there will be witnesses to the nature of his work and whether he could suffer vicarious traumatization; and there will be other witnesses to how he behaved. Then there may well be psychological testimony.
Here is a link to the Digest for the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF): “Core Criminal Law Subjects: Defenses: Lack of Mental Responsibility.”
In Part I, I briefly outlined the formal examination process prior to presenting an insanity/lack of mental responsibility defense. Now here is some information on the “law” or legal standard for an insanity defense. This is the defense that Major Hasan and his lawyers are going to have to consider for his actions at Fort Hood. The outlines can be found in Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 916(k).
You can immediately see why PTSD might not be sufficient of a mental health issue to be a defense rather than mitigation, because:
The military (insanity) lack of mental responsibility defense is set out in several places relevant to Major Hasan and the events at Fort Hood. The first step that should be taken by a prudent convening authority in this case is to order a mental examination under R.C.M. 706, as soon as Major Hasan is medically fit. Major Hasan and his counsel could arrange for a private examination at the major’s own expense. But should they attempt to put on an insanity/lack of mental responsibility defense the prosecution will certainly persuade the military judge to order a government examination.
There are two reports: the first is a short form with the answers to the basic questions. The short form is given to the commander at Fort Hood, his legal advisor, the prosecution, and the military judge. A long and detailed report is given only to the defense. Thus the examination and a large part of the work is privileged. Mil. R. Evid. 302 sets out the privileged nature of the examination, and the exceptions. The defense becomes the gatekeeper of the report. Should the defense seek to put on a lack of mental responsibility (insanity) defense the report may well have to be disclosed. Should the examination find the major currently incompetent, then he’s off to the federal confinement facility at Butner, NC, under Article 76b, UCMJ. There is currently one service-member at Butner under Article 76b.
CNN Justice reports:
Toobin: Cabinet members may end up negotiating which legal system will try Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the suspect in last week’s mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Tuesday.
CNN: Would the charges be the same in either case?
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.
Military.com reports:
A Marine reservist accused of attacking a Greek Orthodox priest with a tire iron after apparently calling him a terrorist was actually defending himself after being sexually attacked by the cleric, his defense attorney said Tuesday.
Tampa Police report offered a far different account, saying Marakis was lost when he followed Bruce into the garage and asked for help, then was struck with the tire iron and chased several blocks. When officers arrived, Bruce called Marakis a terrorist and said the priest had shouted "Allahu akbar!" — Arabic for "God is great."
| California man is facing a criminal charge for wearing numerous Navy medals despite the fact he never served in the military, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. A witness “saw Burton wearing a Marine Corps uniform displaying the rank of lieutenant colonel, along with the Navy Cross, the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star[.] |
 |
The azstarnet reports:
A Davis-Monthan airman was acquitted Tuesday in the slaying of another airman in 2007 during a south-side house party, an official said.
A court martial panel found Senior Airman Philip Andre Howard not guilty of the June 2007 death of Airman 1st Class Brian Santos, said Capt. Stacie Shafran, a D-M spokeswoman.
The LifeSiteNews.com is reporting:
While Hasan recovers at the Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, the Army is readying itself to charge Hasan in military court, where he could face the death-penalty. But prosecutors will have to charge Hasan under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which was amended in 2004 to include “Laci and Conner’s Law” or the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (UVVA).
The UVVA requires that the justice system charge the perpetrator of a violent crime against a pregnant woman, resulting in death or bodily injury to her unborn child, with committing a separate and distinct offence against the mother’s unborn child. The law specifies that the punishment applied for the injury or death of the child must be the same – with the exception of the death penalty – as if “that injury or death occurred to the unborn child’s mother.”
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog