Posted on 01/27/2007 2:36:36 PM PST by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON ---- A hearing for a Marine lieutenant accused of assaulting three Iraqis took a dramatic turn Saturday when a witness called in his defense was told he could be facing criminal charges for allegedly lying.
Lance Cpl. Andrew Kraus was read his legal rights and informed that he might be charged with making a false official statement and committing perjury during his testimony in a hearing for 2nd Lt. Nathan Phan.
The accusation against Kraus came from the lead prosecutor, Maj. Donald Plowman, who told the court he was duty-bound to level the charge.
The hearing officer, Lt. Col. William Pigott, agreed.
After being read his rights, Kraus told Pigott he wanted a lawyer and was then led out of the courtroom.
Plowman's action came after the lance corporal testified under oath that he did not have any recollection of meeting with him in August, nor any memory of telling Plowman during that session that a sworn statement that implicated Phan in the assault was accurate.
Plowman told the court that the meeting had taken place and was witnessed by co-prosecutor, Capt. Nicholas Gannon, and that Kraus had affirmed during the meeting that his statement implicating Phan was accurate.
Kraus had been called by Phan's defense team after providing them with a signed, sworn affidavit that contends his original statement prepared by an agent of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service contained falsehoods and that he never told the agent that he had any knowledge of Phan committing an assault.
He was the third of three enlisted Marines to make such statements in an ongoing Article 32 hearing for Phan that will determine whether the 26-year-old lieutenant and platoon leader will face court-martial.
Two other enlisted Marines have also testified that statements attributed to them by the Navy and Marine Corps' civilian law enforcement agency contained things they never said that implicate Phan.
Those two Marines were not threatened with criminal charges stemming from the statements they gave in Iraq last spring during an investigation into the slaying of a 52-year-old Iraqi civilian in the village of Hamdania.
The assault allegation against Phan was an outgrowth of the homicide probe, in which five of the eight men charged have entered guilty pleas in negotiated agreements with prosecutors.
Phan, who commanded the platoon members charged in the April 26 killing of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, was not present when that incident took place and is no way connected to the slaying.
But members of the squad charged in that case have made statements that Phan and others assaulted three Iraqis in March and April of last year, resulting the charge against Phan. He also faces a charge of making a false official statement in connection with one of the alleged assault victims.
After Kraus was led from the courtroom, Pigott told the attorneys that he may urge the convening authority over the case, Lt. Gen. James Mattis, to order an investigation to determine how it came to be that the lance corporal and the two other enlisted Marines made what are considered official statements in Iraq against Phan and then denied having said things contained in those statements.
The veracity of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents who took those statements has been made a centerpiece of the defense's case.
David Sheldon, Phan's lead attorney, contends the enlisted Marines had no motivation to lie and that the law enforcement agency cannot prove the statements it attributes to them are accurate because it does not routinely audio or videotape witness statements nor interrogations of criminal suspects.
Sheldon told Pigott that he believed the Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents also should have been cautioned before they testified.
"Each witness should be read their rights," he said. "One (either the enlisted Marines or the agents) is telling the truth and one is not ---- there should be an investigation."
Pigott was not entirely clear as to whether he will ask for an investigation of the agents.
"I will likely recommend an investigation into this whole matter," he said.
Phan's attorneys maintain the Sacramento-area native is innocent and that the prosecution has failed in the hearing to present sufficient evidence for Pigott to recommend a court-martial.
The hearing is continuing this afternoon and may stretch into Sunday before it is completed. When it is finished, Pigott will consider all the evidence and make a written recommendation to Mattis, who can order Phan to trial, dismiss the case entirely or take some form of an administrative action.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
Red's got a pretty darn good idea about the true meaning behind Semper Fi.
In fact, he's one of THE few, the proud, the most faithful FReepers to these Marines.
He wasn't questioning quite what you thought. : )
Re: If you don't know the true meaning behind "Semper Fi" you will not understand what has transpired between this Officer and his Marines.
Okay, I've got a lot to learn, wouldn't mind a lesson.
Re:What I don't understand is what's transpiring between Lance Cpl. Andrew Kraus and Major Donald Plowman.
Okay, I've got a friggin headache trying to keep up with all of this. My take is that the civilian defense attorney, Sheldon, is playing a very smart game of cornering the NCIS. NCIS is countering with intimidation. Lance Cpl. Kraus is saying (paraphrased), "I never said that about Phan", knowing he can be charged with "perjury" since he previously signed a statement in which NCIS said he did. Defense attorney Sheldon is basically saying, with the help of Kraus, prove Kraus said it. It's a classic case of he said/he said without video/audiotapes. If Plowman (prosecutor) wants to prove NCIS's side, make him produce tapes. Wonder if they exist? At this point, NCIS may lose credibility for future case as well as with the Phan case; Marine Kraus is risking a lot more personally.
Is my take clear as mud? Did I mention I have a friggin headache thinking about all of this?
You know what?
What, ma?
I'll add a few stones to your mud and make it clear as concrete.
You've got it, except that these three that are, in essence, calling the NCIS liars, signed the statements attributed to them- statements typed up by NCIS. Their signatures would make this a sworn statement, entered into evidence. To backtrack on what they've sworn was the truth is where the double jeopardy of perjury comes in.
The question is, were they even allowed to read the statement before being made to sign it. Were they even told what it was? When you're told to do something in the Corps, you just f'in do it. You don't ask f'in questions.
DumbellGarbo (Who I'll call Gumby) and that hunka hunka burnin' love Bode (gag me) are not the only ones missing.
anybody remember the USS Iowa turret disaster?
Damn straight.
Well said
There is only one reason for a LE agency to refrain from recording statements. They is because they do not want a verbatim record of what was said.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
See Post #41........ and perhaps give Girlene a hand for working so hard to help these Marines.
Come on, Red! I've been sitting here patiently, waiting for you to ask me who else is missing!!!
That's exactly what stinks so badly about all this. There's nothing to prevent a powerful politican who controls appropriations (oh, say, someone like John Murtha) from essentially giving a scenario to a civilian federal agency like the NCIS who can then over their piles of crap evidence to the JAGs. There is no oversight, no accountability, no review. Unbelievable.
Yes. The USS Iowa case was a disaster for the NIS (now known as NCIS). From what I remember, the NIS tried to blame a turret explosion on the ship on a sailor who also died in the incident. Their take was that he was gay, despondent and committed suicide, taking 45 others with him. His sister/family fought for a long time until his name was cleared. It was determined to be purely an accident. At least that's what I remember.
Nothing has changed since the USS IOWA travesty except the name change. There is no oversight of the NCIS. They're as corrupt and abusive as they want to be.
The Man with the Golden Gun in his mouth.
Is he dead, alive, in a posh hotel outside Pendleton?
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. They have had the most information on these cases. (well except for NEWSMAX)
It's about time you clocked in.
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.