Posted on 06/14/2015 8:31:41 AM PDT by Brad from Tennessee
Despite offers of immunity from prosecution, four ex-Marines and a former Navy corpsman have refused to testify against Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins in his retrial in the 2006 killing of an Iraqi.
The five — all of whom were convicted in the killing and served time in the brig — asserted their 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination during the court martial last week at Camp Pendleton.
Hutchins, 31, was the squad leader the night that prosecutors claim the squad dragged a 52-year-old Iraqi from his bed, tied his hands, shot him multiple times and then tried to make the incident look like a firefight.
Hutchins stood over the wounded man and pumped three bullets into his face, which "blew up the back of his skull," one of the prosecutors, Maj. Samson Newsome, told the six-man jury in his opening statement.
The jury — three officers and three senior enlisted — must decide whether Hutchins should again be convicted of unpremeditated murder and possibly returned to prison for four-plus years. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
As good as can be hoped for.
Is it time for civil disobedience?
A major in the military really said that?
I hope this is just bad journalism, but exactly what immunity could be offered to Marines and a sailor who have already been convicted, served time, and been discharged from the military? As is so often the case in Obama's lawless version of America, the only thing that keeps me from being even more disgusted is confusion.
Agree ....good point.
Ping to UCMJ proceedings...
And what’s with the “again be convicted?”
I know the papers are slowly dying, but are they subbing out writing and editing to Colorado, or what?
1. The refusing witnesses argued their ...confessions and later testimony were coerced and falsified by Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents. So, in one sense, it was a big FY back to the prosecution.
2. Perhaps most importantly, to the extent the witnesses originally were coerced to be less than truthful, they were concerned about getting tripped up in the second trial. ...they did not want to risk prosecution for perjury if, in testifying, they changed their testimony.
I tend to agree with the reluctant witnesses - they have absolutely nothing to gain from assisting the prosecution. The only thing, from a purely strategic and procedural standpoint, is that they could hold out for full pardons from SECNAV, but I don’t see that as likely, since it would eviscerate their credibility. Maybe the lack of eyewitnesses will make the prosecution reluctant to proceed, as the majority of prosecutors, military and civilian (I’ve been both), hate more than anything to lose in front of a jury/panel. Too few take to hear the job of a prosecutor: not to convict, but to ensure justice is done.
Colonel, USAFR
hear = heart
And on that last, Marilyn Mosby would appear to be the modern poster child of one who doesn’t take it to heart.
“...the only thing that keeps me from being even more disgusted is confusion.”
I used to have (and may still somewhere) a t-shirt that said, “I used to be disgusted, now I’m just amused.”
It would probably still fit, but, alas, I’m not amused any more.
Remember the good Ole days when people were only tried once for a crime.
If I understand correctly, the conviction was overturned on appeal. I’m assuming that the appeal would have been at the request of the accused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.