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.
Gawker, an unusual blog has information about Major Hasan’s application for a concealed carry permit in VA. Fort Hood, like all military installations, will have a regulation concerning the possession and carrying of weapons on post. Usually the weapon has to be stored in the Armory.
Here is the complete application. The blog also notes:
Before 1995, according to the Roanoke County Circuit Court clerk’s office, Virginia law required a psychiatric evaluation and documented explanation for why a resident needed to carry a concealed handgun. But by the time Hasan applied in October 1995, all that was required was a criminal background check and certification of a gun safety course. For some reason proof of having completed individual infantry training in the U.S. Army (next slide) was not enough for the Commonwealth of Virginia when it came to gun safety and Hasan had to take an NRA course as well.
Will Major Hasan successfully use PTSD as a defense, or will it at least become a mitigating factor to be considered. If the trial is at Fort Hood, as seems likely at the moment, many of the Members (jury) panel will already have quite a bit of extra-judicial information.
Here are some links relating to secondary traumatization.
Zimmering, Munroe, & Gulliver, Secondary Traumatization in Mental Health Care Providers, 20 Psych. Times (Apr. 2003).
I’m not posting much at the moment on the Fort Hood tragedy. People can follow the news as easily as I can. However, this article by Will Heaven in the (U.K.) Daily Telegraph did raise an eyebrow.
Fort Hood shooting: the death penalty would make Nidal Malik Hasan an Islamic martyr
The implication of the article is that commanders should make a political decision that seeking the death penalty is not a good idea. Equally I suppose an argument could be made that the defense should make the geo-politics an issue because anything that might be “mitigating” must be considered when seeking to impose the death penalty. I’m not an advocate of the death penalty for various reasons; a political decision is not one of the reasons I’m against the death penalty though.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog