Replies

The actual facts relevant to the case are the top layer of defense, but these "ideologies" form the background that a panel of peers will be using in their judgement.

Appealing to those ideologies is grounds for an instant mistrial. The message a verdict may send is not an appropriate consideration.

Is there an equivalent of the Army official histories for legal cases? Since JAGs rotate as defense and prosecution, they must have to study actual cases as part of their education. So I'm assuming there must a series of some kind.

I'm wondering, for instance, about the Capt. Medina case and how that verdict came about. I'd love to read up on it, if there's anything worth a darn to read.

I never said anything about a panel sending a message with their verdict. I indicated a panel would use their knowledge and experience to decide a case. The more you understand an issue, hopefully, the better you are able to make a rational judgement with the evidence presented.

Part of the defense strategy, I would assume, is to apply public/political pressure prior to the panelled hearing. It could be a reminder to those who may be involved in the panel what the real issues are. It could be a message to Americans to bring pressure on their elected officials. It could be a reminder to higher ups what message would be sent to other Marines in harms way, if these men are found guilty. It's all freedom of speech at this point.

Based on what you know about this case, what would be your defense strategy in the court room? Bear in mind, if these hearings are public, a little courtroom gamesmanship does come into play. This was all too evident in the Hamdania hearings with the prosecution's tactics.