The Seattle Times reports (on a Ramrod Five/Stryker Brigade case):
The Army has postponed a hearing that had been scheduled for Tuesday for Staff Sgt. David Bram, who faces charges of conspiracy, striking another soldier, cruelty, dereliction of duty and impeding an investigation while serving in southern Afghanistan.
Military.com reports (no surprise here, the surprise would be not seeking a capital referral):
I posted that Mr. Galligan had sought to have the Hasan Article 32, UCMJ, hearing closed to avoid media attention.
Dallas news reports.
A hearing outlining evidence against U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan in last year’s massacre at a soldier readiness center should be public, a military official ruled Thursday.
In the July Army Lawyer Judge McDonald has some comments based on his first year on the bench. (I have noted over the years that it takes most judges about a year to get their relative bearing.) I think we can all echo his comments and find a myriad of examples from our own and other cases. What I wanted to comment on though was something in the section about keeping track. If this is not what Judge McDonald does in trial or had not meant to convey then I’ll be the first to apologize, but . . .
I have presided over more than a few judge-alone cases where I have asked more questions than the trial counsel, including asking witnesses about elements that were not covered by the Government.
At page 39 (emphasis added).
MySA news reports that:
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.
Article 32, is supposed to begin today.
Here is a link to Wikipedia and a biography of Major Hasan. The Washington Post also has a piece on his life.
The Houston Chronicle has an odd item:
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.
The LA Times has interesting piece which essentially posits that both the defense and Congress are being stonewalled in production of relevant information. Usually it’s only the defense.
But even before the gavel comes down, two legal battles are underway to try to force the Army and the Department of Justice to turn over documents dealing with Hasan’s past, particularly his personnel files, his mental health records and other documents that might suggest the government should have known he was a dangerously troubled soldier.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has taken the unusual step of issuing subpoenas demanding the records as part of its investigation into the shooting spree. What they want to know, said committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), is "why was he not stopped before he took 13 American lives, and how can we prevent such a tragedy from happening again?"
Pilot Online reports that:
For years, the top officer in the Virginia National Guard has had a paid position with a business run by one of his subordinate officers.
Newman promoted Bonanni to the assistant adjutant general’s post in 2008 while collecting a paycheck from his company.
KVUE.com reports that:
The attorney representing the accused gunman in the 2009 Fort Hood shootings says the Army is holding back important evidence in the upcoming Article 32 hearing.
Attorney John Galligan says he needs court documents, including Major Nidal Hasan’s FBI files, to gain more insight into his mental state in the months leading up to the shooting.
I posted yesterday a couple of items where Mr. Galligan indicates he’s been given notice that the prosecution intends seeking the death penalty in the Hasan case. He’s wrong, but not wrong. It’s a question of terminology and reality.
Here is a quick note from KWTX.com:
FORT HOOD (April 30, 2010)–Fort Hood authorities said Friday they have not reached a decision to seek the death penalty in the upcoming Article 32 for Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog