[jude24]

Compulsory process cuts both ways. If you want the court to make an informed opinion, it needs the testimony of anyone who was present. I very much doubt if the defense would appreciate an exculpatory witness who refused to appear out of loyalty to someone else.

Don't confuse the issues of the appropriateness of some of these prosecutions with this case, where a witness decided on his own that he wouldn't testify. It is a cornerstone of Anglo-American law that only very select persons - lawyers, priests, and spouses - can refuse to testify in a matter not jeopardizing oneself. The place to challenge the prosecution is at the Art. 32 stage or with trial advocacy - not by an activist witness choosing whether or not to testify.

Sorry. Just a stickler for the foundations of the rule of law. Our legal system isn't perfect, but flawed as it is, it beats the alternatives. So I get nervous when I see things that endanger it. Sgt. Nelson's loyalty is admirable (and his concerns regarding the prosecution of Sgt. Weemer entirely justified, but the rule of law cannot permit witnesses to refuse to testify out of loyalty. That cure would be worse than the disease.

Best way Sgt. Nelson could help Sgt. Weemer would be to talk with the defense to ensure they have every opportunity to hear their side of things. Remember - the jury (if it even gets to that point) will all be military members, almost certainly all with combat experience. The officers and NCO's sitting on that panel will be very interested to hear Sgt. Nelson's understanding of events. There's a pretty good chance that what he found reasonable under those circumstances they will too.

maybe its just that my litigation strategy is colored by my view that military panels, especially, are relatively sophisticated, but if I were Sgt. Weemer's counsel, I'd jump for joy if the prosecution's sole case rested on the testimony of a Sergeant sympathetic to my client. Fighting the subpoena is unwise IMHO.

I can't believe I just typed all that on a cell phone.

[Grammar Nazi]

Remember - the jury (if it even gets to that point) will all be military members, almost certainly all with combat experience.

No, you're thinking of a court-martial. This is a US district court, an entirely different animal.

[11th_VA]

but the rule of law cannot permit witnesses to refuse to testify out of loyalty. That cure would be worse than the disease

Given where the courts have gone in this country, I kinda like the outcome.

[xzins]

The best way Nelson can help everyone is by saying, as is apparently the truth, that his memory is jumbled and he’s just not sure what’s real and what is male bonding fiction created out of fear, testosterone, braggadocio, and too many lonely nights with nothing to do but tell and retell the events of the last 1,2,3,4,5....12 months.

In short, “Judge, I think my memories are faulty and I can’t separate the real ones from the made up ones.”

[RedRover]

I can't believe I just typed all that on a cell phone.

LOLOLOL! I'm a Palm Treo guy myself!

[JRandomFreeper]

Bogus prosecutions are the first current undercutting the rule of law.

I've seen them first hand.

The founding fathers of this country were criminals, in the eyes of the British.

Stop with the bogus prosecutions, or we the people will stop it. Period.

There are plenty of real crimes to prosecute.

/johnny

[Lancey Howard]

It is a cornerstone of Anglo-American law that only very select persons - lawyers, priests, and spouses - can refuse to testify in a matter not jeopardizing oneself.

As well as psychiatrists, doctors, rabbis, and others whom the court decides gained privileged knowledge that could reasonably be expected to be kept confidential. I submit that brothers-in-arms who depend on each other in life-and-death situations on the battlefield deserve the same consideration.