Posted on 11/08/2007 7:05:09 PM PST by RainMan
Edited on 11/08/2007 7:08:39 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
A U.S. District Court judge today granted a preliminary injunction that bars the Army from proceeding with a second court-martial trial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the first Army officer to face prison for refusing to deploy to Iraq.
Watada's court-martial in February ended in a mistrial, and his attorneys have claimed that Fifth Amendment constitutional protections prevent Watada from being tried twice for the same crime.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
WHA?
Since when?
So a mistrial is now a not guilty verdict?
Washington State Ping
Great! Order him to Iraq again, and let him screw himself for a second time.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
huh? Are they letting him walk?
A mistrial is not and has never been grounds for double jeopardy. This judge must have an agenda.
There’s a thought.
If the courts are are too incompetent to carry out trials, then why have courts? Somehow the illiberal mind does not see the sowing of the seeds of its own destruction.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Except... on thinking about it...
He might take the mission this time, and no American soldier should be put at risk by having this treasonous coward in their company. He’d get good men killed. Better men than him.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Obviously so. The real question is, under what possible legal reasoning does this judge even have jurisdiction? What are civilian judges doing being involved in UCMJ proceedings?
OOPs.
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/judges_frm
Settle, Benjamin Hale
Born 1947 in Olympia, WA
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Western District of Washington
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 9, 2007, to a seat vacated by Franklin D. Burgess; Confirmed by the Senate on June 28, 2007, and received commission on July 2, 2007.
Education:
Claremont McKenna College, B.A., 1969
Willamette University College of Law, J.D., 1972
Professional Career:
Private practice, Washington, 1972, 1976-2007
Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Army, 1973-1976
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
a noob,, to boot.
The military can order him to duty anywhere, and if he refuses, then he will be court marshalled again.
If he takes an Iraq or Afghanistan duty assignment, I want to buy a life insurance policy on him.
A mistrial can constitute a trial if evidence was lead to convict him. We have a double jeopardy rule, and if it is pleaded on a second identical charge, with identical evidence, then it is successful. They should have changed the offences he had been charged with, or found "new" evidence.Then Watada would not have been able to plead double jeopardy as a defence to the second trial.
A man can only be tried once for any given offence under federal law. State law is different in many jurisdictions where the double jeopardy rule is very narrowly interpreted.
Generally once a person is placed in jeopardy by evidence led against him that would lead to concviction, that evidence cannot be used for a trial in a second identical offence trial. Some staes allow a second trial with very small changes to the indictment or to the offence with which the accused is charged. In this case , the feds decided the charges and evidence were identical to the first trial, so the double jeopardy defence was successful.
Sounds like a Dem prosecutor in front of a Dem judge. No wonder Gonzales wanted to clean house.
Apparently, the Judge decided he had jurisdiction over a military court. That’s pure moonbatism.
It can be, in certain limited cases of prosecutorial misconduct at trial.
But a mistrial is not a trial. There is no finding of guilty or not guilty. It provides no jeopardy.
Double jeopardy only comes into play if there was a verdict, say, of not guilty and then there was another trial on the same charge and evidence.
There was no trial here.
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.