Marine heads to trial on obstruction charges in Haditha case [Lt Grayson court martial]

Associated Press via Mercury News ^ | May 28, 2008 | Chelsea J. Carter

[RedRover]

SAN DIEGO—A Marine intelligence officer heads to court Wednesday to answer charges of obstruction of justice and making false statements during an investigation into the killings of 24 Iraqis.

The court-martial of 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson is the first case to come to trial in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths to come out of the Iraq war.

Authorities maintain eight Marines killed the Iraqis shortly after a roadside bomb hit a convoy, killing the driver of a Humvee and wounding two Marines.

Grayson of Springboro, Ohio, was not present at the scene of the killings on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, but is accused of telling a sergeant to delete photographs of the dead from his digital camera.

Investigators allege after the bombing, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and a squad member allegedly shot five men by a car at the scene. Wuterich then allegedly ordered his men into several houses, where they cleared rooms with grenades and gunfire, killing unarmed civilians in the process.

Charges against all but three Marines, including Grayson, have been dropped.

[xzins]

Yes, I agree with regard to the police.

What I’m referring to is the common practice of sitting down with fellow soldiers and conducting an after action review....discussing what you did, how it worked, and what you can do to make it better. For it to be of benefit it is to be nonrecriminatory.

[Lancey Howard]

From RedRover's archives:

Colonel Watt arrived in Iraq in February 17, 2006—roughly a month before NCIS and a month before the publication of the first Haditha story in Time magazine. Col Watt had been prepped for his assignment with a copy of a letter from Tim McGirk that outlined allegations of murder in Haditha and the propaganda video that was shot of the ambush’s aftermath.

Lt Grayson’s problems began when he refused to sign a privacy statement before being interrogated by Col Watt. As an intelligence officer, Lt Grayson explained that he could not do so without authorization. This got the colonel and lieutenant off to a bad start. Lt Grayson was the only one of the Marines who refused to sign the form.

Note: I believe that RedRover has corrected the record to reflect that what Lt. Grayson refused to sign was actually the (Miranda) "rights waiver" form, not a "privacy statement".

[jude24]

Article 31, like Miranda, is not offense-specific. There is no error in warning someone about "the event" as opposed to "the charges." Art. 31 is concerned with notice about rights against self-incrimination and to counsel, not noticeof the charges against the soldier. Notice of the nature of the charges is done at preferral.

I think you all are looking for a dramatic "Matlock moment," where someone admits the charges were fabricated, or some sort of smoking gun. Don't hold your breath; those almost never happen in litigation.

[Girlene]

I checked the Defend our Marines site for any pdf's of these waiver forms. Of the ones I found,

Wuterich's statement to Watt was changed.
Kallop's statement to Watt was changed.
Sharratt's statement to Watt was changed.

So I'm thinking all the waivers were changed.

[Girlene]

I think you all are looking for a dramatic "Matlock moment,"

LOL. That would be nice, but I don't think it will happen in Lt. Grayson's trial. I was trying to understand the motion to have the statements to Watt suppressed.

Article 31, like Miranda, is not offense-specific. There is no error in warning someone about "the event" as opposed to "the charges." Art. 31 is concerned with notice about rights against self-incrimination and to counsel, not noticeof the charges against the soldier.

According to Article 31

....."Who must be warned? Article 31(b) requires that an accused or suspect be advised of his rights prior to questioning or interrogation. A person is an accused if charges have been preferred against him or her. On the other hand, to determine when a servicemember is a suspect is more difficult. .....

.....Courts will review the facts available to the interrogator to determine whether the interrogator should have suspected the servicemember, not whether he in fact did. Rather than speculate in a given situation, it is far preferable to warn all potential suspects before attempting any questioning.".....

Which is Watt did....except he took out the part about being being a potential suspect. Why do you think the atty's argued about having these statements suppressed? They must have had some legal reasoning for doing so. I was speculating it was due to lack of "Fair Notice" of being a suspect.

[jude24]

Don’t use sites like “about.com” or (marginally better) Wikipedia as your reference. To figure out Art. 31, or anything else UCMJ-related, use what military lawyers use to figure things out - the Manual for Courts Martial. The 2008 edition is availible online as a PDF.

[RedRover]

I finally got the stringer I was using on the phone who said that "it was referred to as the Privacy Act at the trial. There was also a reference to a 38250.1H that protects the identities of HET operatives."

Further, "Al Qaeda has bounties on the heads of the HET guys, so they are never allowed to sign their names to anything that identifies them - hence the refusal to sign. Maj Dinsmore backed this up at the 32, and I assume will do so again when he appears."

That doesn't exactly clear things up but may mean we'll get more clarification in testimony this week. There may even be more than form in play here.

Best yet, when Lt Grayson is finally free and clear, maybe he can tell us what the heck this was all about!

[Lancey Howard]

Article 31, like Miranda, is not offense-specific. There is no error in warning someone about "the event" as opposed to "the charges."

There is a problem if the preprinted form uses the word "charges" and must be manually altered to say "event", rather than the other way around.

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks for the clarification!

[Girlene]

Thanks, Red. Maybe Col. Watt didn’t know this about HET operatives. Makes sensse why 1st Lt. Grayson wouldn’t sign the statement. I think why he didn’t sign is seperate from the motion to suppress the statement...but no matter.

One thing seems clear to me....1st Lt. Grayson knew his job.

[Girlene]

Thanks for the tip, jude. That UCMJ pdf file is probably 5 million MByte, which is impossible for me to load. I think I’m stuck with about.com as a “stinky” alternative.

[RedRover]

I got a little more information from the stringer. She wrote down the names of the witnesses as they read out by the prosecutor, LtCol Atterbury, at the beginning of the trial. The list below are witnesses who have not yet appeared (it may be that not all will be called--I can't see how they can unless the trial goes all week).

Some of the spellings may be incorrect as the names were read. Also, not all the ranks were given (or she didn't catch them). She also didn't get which were defense or prosecution witnesses (hey, she's a California fox, what can I say).

Jason Daniels
Major Jeff Dinsmore
Major Samuel Carrasco
Captain Lucas McConnell
Capt Joseph Burke (intelligence officer)
Capt. Michael Dubrule (Director of training at the Navy-Marine Corps Intelligence Center)
Kevin Woodard
Cathy Tate
Mark Smith
Dan Wisnant
Charles Emicher
Edward O'Connell
Kathleen Bray NCIS
Jeff Star
Kurt Abrezio NCIS
Marianne Pruneda
T Cabrera
Clyde LeGaux (clerk for Col Watt)
G Quan
Fred Bista
Thomas Simbers
Amy Ball NCIS
Pat Lin NCIS
Ray Offenbacher

Basically, I think the defense case has to be all about character. That Lt Grayson is an outstanding Marine and had no reason to cover anything up.

Both captains Burke and Dubrule testified at Lt Grayson's Article 32 and gave the lieutenant stellar appraisals as an intelligence officer.

Captain Lucas McConnell, Major Jeff Dinsmore, and Major Samuel Carrasco are, of course, all 3/1 Marines. The rest of the names are not known to me.

[bigheadfred]

Don't hold your breath; those almost never happen in litigation.

Horrifying, I know. That is why they call it "practicing" law.

[Lancey Howard]

How do you get to be a stringer at a court martial hearing?

[RedRover]

You have to be cleared in advance by the PAOs. You really just need press credentials (and be willing to be there at six in the morning).

Stringers go to these events in hope that there’ll be a big development that will make a big story. That hasn’t happened in quite a while. But going to the trial beats sitting on the couch, watching “The Price is Right”.

[Girlene]

But going to the trial beats sitting on the couch, watching “The Price is Right”.

Hey! Don't knock it 'til you've tried it!

Re. the list of witnesses, would it be inappropriate to ask Clyde LeGaux if Col. Watt was distracted during his investigation by his cell phone?

[RedRover]

LOL! Maybe that’s why Watt was so grouchy about wasting time on little things like the need for an HET operative to stay alive.

[jazusamo]

LOL! Good one, Girl. It may not be too far from the truth. :-)

[Girlene]

Hey, jaz, I don’t know if he was having these issues back in February, 2006, but at the time of Grayson’s hearing in mid-November, 2007?.....maybe so.

[RedRover]

BIG NEWS!!!!!!!!

Judge Dismisses Charge Against Lt Andrew Grayson, David Allender, Defend Our Marines, June 2, 2008

In a courtroom shocker today, military judge Major Brian Kasprzyk dismissed one of four charges pending against Lt. Andrew Grayson. The charge dismissed is obstructing justice. It carried a maximum punishment of dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years.

Three charges still stand against the lieutenant: two charges of making a false official statement and one charge of attempting to fraudulently leave the Marine Corps.

Lt Grayson is one of three remaining defendants in the Haditha case. The prosecution rested its case today and the defense will open its case tomorrow.

This is a developing story.