Tomorrow begins the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, prefatory to a general court-martial.
NPR leads with:
Dozens of people will take the witness stand in a military courtroom over the next few weeks to describe the pain of bullets piercing their bodies and the sight of fellow soldiers lying in pools of blood.
Despite the political rhetoric LTC Lakin’s case has given us a number of teaching moments or opportunity to refresh on some basic practice principles.
1. Can LTC Lakin change lawyers at this stage. The answer in this case is probably yes. Although technically Mr. Jensen should submit a motion to be released and the new counsel file a notice of appearance.
2. Can LTC Lakin’s get a delay in the trial. Trial is currently set to begin 3 November 2010. The current docket is dated 6 October 2010. There is some question whether or not Neal Puckett or his other counsel are available because of the Wuterich trial ongoing. Also, there would be an issue of giving them an opportunity to prepare for trial. The answer to a continuance request in this case is probably yes, unless the prosecution can show an extraordinary adverse effect on their case by a delay.
Army Times reports:
A military officer has ordered a mental evaluation for the suspect in the November Fort Hood shootings before a key hearing next week.
Earlier this year, Army officials appointed a three-member board of military mental health professionals to determine whether Maj. Nidal Hasan is competent to stand trial and his mental status the day of the Nov. 5 shooting.
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.
WFAA.com reports that:
Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan’s attorney tells News 8 he will ask a military judge Thursday morning to close the upcoming Article 32 Hearing for his client to the public and press.
“I think it’s necessary to ensure he can eventually get a fair trial at Fort Hood,” (Ret.) Col. John Galligan, Hasan’s civilian attorney, told News 8 Wednesday. “We need to make sure his Sixth Amendment rights are not jeopardized.”
News8Austin reports:
Next Thursday Maj. Hasan’s pretrial investigation, Article 32 hearing will reconvene.
According to officials, the session is called a Status Conference Hearing and will address additional preliminary measures. Officials say no witness testimony will be heard during this portion of the hearing. The Article 32 hearing will be held on October 12.
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.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog