Attorney John Galligan says Maj. Nidal Hasan has excessive restrictions — including a rule barring any visitors when his attorneys are in his hospital room.
Air Force Times reports.
This same rule operates at the pretrial confinement facility. The Brigs are pretty good about letting counsel in to visit for “legal visits.” But there are restrictions on mingling of family visits and “professional” visits.
A counterterror airstrike in Yemen that may have targeted Anwar al-Awlaki, the extremist cleric linked to Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, could raise new questions about whether Hasan’s rampage in Killeen, Texas, on Nov. 5 was the act of a lone wolf or part of a conspiracy.
Reports the Christian Science Monitor.
An Army psychiatrist accused of fatally shooting 13 at the Fort Hood, Texas, military base had asked for a Muslim cleric’s advice about killing U.S. troops, according to a new interview.
Retired Army Col. John Galligan, Hasan’s civilian attorney, has said his client is considering pleading not guilty by reason of insanity [at his court-martial].
The lead defense lawyer for accused Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan said Monday that he believes the Army is violating Hasan’s religious rights because it prohibited him from praying from the Koran in Arabic with a relative.
Attorney John P. Galligan said he learned that police guarding Hasan at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio cut short a phone conversation Hasan was having with one of his brothers on Friday because Hasan was not speaking in English.
San Antonio Press News reports.
For some years now, primarily relating to Iraq/Afghanistan cases there has been lots of litigation by media and congress. The current move to save the SEALs by congress is just the most recent example of seeking to influence a court-martial case. The “litigation” has been both for and against the military member. We all remember the issue of Congressman Murtha calling for prosecution of a Marine for alleged misconduct. Whether such litigation is good for the system and the UCMJ is a different question. In this day and age of millisecond journalism and sound-bites here are a couple of thoughts and a caution. LawProf blog has posted:
Laurie L. Levenson (Loyola Law School Los Angeles) has posted Prosecutorial Soundbites: When Do They Cross the Line? (Georgia Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Even good prosecutors can cross the line with media soundbites. Especially in high-profile cases, prosecutors must assess if their pretrial remarks about a case meet their ethical obligations. In Gentile v. Nevada State Bar, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that while lawyers have the First Amendment right to make comments to the press, they do not have the right to make comments that have a “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” Although ethical codes have adopted this broad standard, many have failed to identify more specifically when a prosecutor’s remarks pose a substantial likelihood of having such a prejudicial effect. Using 28 C.F.R. § 50.2 as a guide, this article seeks to identify those “hot-button” areas.
The man accused of the Fort Hood shooting rampage is facing tighter restrictions on his communication with the world outside the hospital room, where he lies paralyzed from the chest down, his lawyer said Monday.
The lawyer, John P. Galligan, said Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan fell asleep during an hour-long hearing held at his hospital bed on Saturday, during which a military magistrate ruled that the suspect should be placed in pretrial confinement. That is a legal status that essentially turns his hospital room, at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, into a jail cell.
He added that he is concerned the Army plans to move Maj. Hasan to Bell County jail here, which is under contract with Fort Hood to serve as a brig, when house-arrest might be more appropriate.
Someone has made a valid request of Congress, and they have agreed:
The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday suspended its investigation of the Nov. 5 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, until the Department of Defense had finished its investigation.
DoD requested that Congress wait until its review had been complete before calling DoD witnesses to testify in public hearings, according to a release from committee chairman Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.
Rumor has it that there are now 12 trial counsel assigned to the prosecution of Major Nidal Malik Hasan, at least one of whom has military death penalty litigation experience.
The defense remains at three with Mr. Galligan and two military defense counsel, none of whom have death penalty experience under the UCMJ.
The Army psychiatrist charged with fatally shooting 13 people at Fort Hood last month has been moved from a hospital intensive care unit to a private room, his attorney said Wednesday. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan remains under guard at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio and is rehabilitating from wounds that left him paralyzed from the waist down.
I’ve commented before about The Conscience of a Lawyer, the story of a how could you represent a really bad person. Here is an excellent article about Colonel Galligan who is representing Major Nidal Milak Hasan for the shootings at Fort Hood.
The Dallas News.com
Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s defense attorney skirmished with Army commanders Wednesday over the timing of a sanity examination for the Fort Hood gunman, saying that his client is still too medically impaired to participate.
So begins a piece in the Dallas News. What’s the flaw. There is no judge that attorney Galligan can go to or appeal to.
"This is getting dirty," lawyer John Galligan said of the Army. "These guys have made it clear that they’re going for blood."
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog