Posted on 06/25/2008 9:40:17 AM PDT by RedRover
The US Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals has ruled that the CBS television news magazine 60 Minutes must turn over outtakes from its interview with Marine Corps Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich in which he revealed what happened at the so-called “Haditha Massacre” in Iraq more than three years ago.
The three-judge appellate panel Friday directed Marine Corps military judge Lt. Col. Jeffrey G. Meeks to “conduct additional fact-finding” including an “in camera review” of the outtakes to determine whether Wuterich revealed any information the government needs to bolster its prosecution against the Marine infantryman.
The ruling of the military judge quashing the Government subpoena was also vacated.
The production was originally broadcast on March 18, 2007.
On February 22, 2008 a military judge tossed out a government motion asking him to order CBS to hand over the videotape. The government subsequently appealed the ruling to the US Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C.
Wuterich, 26, was the Marine Corps squad leader who on November 19, 2005 commanded a fire team of Marine infantryman that swept through four houses adjacent to a road in Haditha, Iraq after an ambush. In the brutal melee, one Marine and 24 Iraqis, including 15 civilians, were killed.
Wuterich and seven other Marines were subsequently charged with murder and cover up on December 21, 2006. A specious news report in Time magazine the previous March triggered a world-wide media frenzy of accusations and condemnation and lead to their prosecution. CBS was among the news leaders in pillorying the innocent Marines.
The following December Wuterich and three other enlisted men were charged with the war crimes of murder and assault and four of their officers charged with cover up. Subsequently seven of the eight Marines have being completely exonerated and Wuterich is awaiting court-martial for reduced charged of manslaughter.
Defend Our Marines is currently waiting for a response from 60 Minutes spokesman Kevin Tedesco.
Civilian defense attorney Neil Puckett, the retired Marine Corps military judge representing Wuterich, said the court’s decision does not mean that CBS must turn over the video tape to Meeks anytime soon. CBS has the option of appealing the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and even the US Supreme Court if it agrees to hear the case.
In the same decision the panel ruled that Wuterich does not have any legal standing in the appeal, which means the subject of the prosecution does not have any say in the decision, Puckett said.
Puckett, who has repeatedly called the government’s request for the video a “fishing expedition,” said he expects that portion of the decision to be appealed.
“I cannot speak for the CBS legal team although I suspect they will appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces also – but the defense appellate team (at camp Pendleton, California) has already asked us for permission to appeal the Wuterich part of the decision.”
The court also directs Meeks to determine if “any asserted “news-gathering” privilege applies to limit or preclude disclosure of necessary evidentiary audio-video material in this case.”
Government prosecutors led by Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan contend that the military judge erred when he quashed a Government subpoena for videotape and other material owned by CBS. They contended that the material purportedly included several hours of an interview conducted by a CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley with Wuterich. That included potentially incriminating statements CBS elected not to air.
The court concluded that “the military judge abused his discretion in quashing the Government subpoena on the basis that the requested evidence was cumulative, without first conducting an in camera review (private review in chambers) of the evidence.”
Will this go all the way to the Supreme Court? CBS sure isn't going to follow this court's ruling--and it's impossible to believe the court doesn't know that.
Unless our Government drops this, SSgt Wuterich could be in legal limbo for years to come as this case slithers its way through the courts.
Will this go all the way to the Supreme Court?
::::::
Going to the SCOTUS would ENSURE a victory for CBS. With a 5-4 vote with the SCOTUS socialists representing the majority.....easy call.
You know something's wrong with a case when the defense wanted to be in court yesterday and the prosecution continues to delay, delay, and delay. At some point (i.e., now) SSgt Wuterich's right to a speedy trial has clearly been denied.
I’D BE INTERESTED JUST WHAT IS IN THOSE “OUT TAKES”, TOO.....
Would this set a precedent in civilian law - or military law, or both? Heck, our Federal government can't stop the NYT from purposely outing the covert agent who interrogated high profile Al Qaeda or disclose who has leaked critical national security data, but suddenly an over zealous military prosecutor can unzip CBS in the hopes of cobbing together fragments of or out of context statements to stitch together a few dubious soundbites?
This is pathetic, Red. I don’t see how anyone could consider this anything but a fishing expedition. If anything incriminating was in those cuttings it would surely have been used by cbs and Sullivan and the prosecution has to know that. This Sullivan needs to be booted and let him practice by defending mod criminals, seems like he’s more suited to that.
A stall tactic for sure. If CBS could nail this Marine, it would have done so in the original airing.
Why does Bush our Commander in Chief end this Witch hunt?
WHY? SIXTY-FIVE INVESTIGATORS, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO DUMPSTER DIVE AT CBS?
Frank may actually retire from the Marines if this is going to be drawn out FOREVER.
Sullivan is a reservist. I actually think he’s trying to delay the case so he’s not the one to lose it.
But let's assume for the moment that SSgt Wuterich wasn't a party. If not, how did NMCCA have jurisdiction? This would no longer be an appeal in the case of United States v. Wutercih. Rather, this would essentially have been litigation in the case of United States v. CBS News. How does the UCMJ provide jurisdiction to a CCA to rule on a dispute between the United States and a private corporation that is not now, and has never been, a member of the U.S. military?
I'll have to read more later. Great find!
Hat tip to Mr. Zins on that. He was the Marco Polo of that blog.
No branch of government is supposed to interfere with the other. But when the Legislative branch is all over the Judicial, it’s past time for the Executive to step up.
Not quite, Nat -- LtC. Chessani's UCI decision is being appealed so he's still on the hook as it were, and behind a desk until the appeal from his persecutors is tossed out.
Then again, after re-watching that dissertation from Professor Duane and Detective Burch I pointed you all to last night, it wouldn't surprise me that the persecutor would find additional info to misuse and misrepresent. I'd sure like to get a reason from SSgt. Wunterich's team as to why in all that is holy they allowed that interview to take place at that time. Nevertheless, this is just more delay and obfuscation from JAG and their political handlers.
Thanks for the info, Red.
The outtakes are rejected for a variety of reasons, and among those reasons are misspeaking, misunderstanding, and misremembering.
There is also his expectation of confidentiality based on the oft emphasize anonymity of sources, content, and methods that the court has upheld for eons regarding the media.
Since those relate to SSgt Wuterich himself, I can’t believe they think he doesn’t have standing.
Beyond that, the prosecution should have to prove on any outtake that Wuterich didn’t misspeak, misunderstand, or misremember. That is an impossible task. The authority on that can only be Wuterich himself.
RedRover,we prayed for him on the air today.
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.