Posted on 05/28/2008 3:33:36 AM PDT by RedRover
At the end of the prosecution’s case, the defense atorney almost always makes a motion to dismiss each of the charges. Doing so allows the defense counsel to not put on a defense to a particular charge if the isn’t enough evidence for it presented by the prosecution. This is done in virtually every case.
It also saves the court a lot of time in some cases. Basically, the judge is saying that the prosecutions case on that charge is so weak, there is no reason to bother with presenting a defense.
It was a trap. If Grayson hadn't argued that he was following the proper procedures, the prosecutor would be more likely get a conviction on the obstruction charge.
That's almost correct. What it means is that the prosecution failed to allege the element of knowledge of an investigation. If the prosecution fails to allege every element of a crime, the charge must be dismissed.
This would apply whether or not Grayson knew there was an investigation. That's why the dropping of the charge was a "procedural matter".
“Yes, Helland was the convening authority for this mess.
I wouldn’t offer Mattis any apologies, though.”
I do wonder if the decision wasn’t one to just put it all out on the table BECAUSE it was all so obviously bunk.
If this thing had been dismissed outright, without the publicity and process of the trials, then it would be forever built up into what it was not by those who love to slander our war fighters.
IF anyone comes out of this with a guilty verdict, then I’ll sing another toon, but so far, so good.
Too bad the filthy, degenerate, intellectual inbred, enemy loving knee crawlers of the betrayer class had to start this crap, but I really don’t see any way the trials could have been bypassed without playing into the scumbags hands.
Well, actually, its too bad we’ve grown so pathetic and weak as a culture and a society that we allow such disgusting scum as our betrayer class to continue to exist among us, let alone flourish.
Yes, that was likely the impetus behind this railroad job in the first place. Military and civilian commanders from the top down ran like scared bunny rabbits from the liberal press - - from friggin TIME Magazine (found only in barber shops and orthodontist waiting rooms)! You have to wonder when they will ever figure out that the scumbag socialists CANNOT be appeased, period.
And so, eight heroic Marines and their families essentially have had their lives ruined, and God knows how many more Marines have been or will be killed because they hesitated ever-so-slightly to pull their triggers out of fear of ending up in a US military prison for defending themselves.
In other words, by grabbing their ankles for the liberal press these commanders have handed the terrorists a win.
“In other words, by grabbing their ankles for the liberal press these commanders have handed the terrorists a win.”
Yep. Don’t disagree with you there, except on maybe this one point...
Who’s fault is it that the libtard betrayer class has such power?
Enough was too much in the late 60s, early 70s with this scum. Who’s failure has it been that this disgraceful collection of enemy loving degeneracy is still as popular and powerful as it is?
They’ve already been allowed one full victory in a war. They’ve been working overtime to engineer another defeat for our own forces in this one.
So, why are...
Maybe I should say, how justified are we in demanding our Marines fight for us on foreign fields, when we show absolutely zero stomach for the fight to reclaim our own home-front?
Megabump, Grimmy.
Prosecutors didn’t bother to claim that when they came to interview Grayson that he knew it was a criminal investigation. Can’t be guilty of obstructing justice if there’s no criminal investigation going on.
If the prosecutors could have proven that he knew, they would have brought it up.
They were just sliding it on by....
This demonstrates that Mattis was getting some kind of advice from someplace that was ignoring a lot in order to get someone.
It can’t be attempted fraud if your attorney says it isn’t illegal or unethical. Even if your attorney is WRONG, you are proceeding in your mind without any attempt to commit fraud.
Me, too.
Now we know it wasn’t fraud. He was proceeding with the best advice an Lt could possibly get....an expert in military law. In his mind he was doing something entirely legal.
And that doesn’t even begin to relate to the counter-attack against terrorists in the town of Haditha, an attack the Lt wasn’t even a part of.
Here's his take on the fraudulent separation charge. Love to know what you all think...
The Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 84 says that:
“Any person subject to this chapter who effects an enlistment or appointment in or a separation from the armed forces of any person who is known to him to be ineligible for that enlistment, appointment, or separation because it is prohibited by law, regulation, or order shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused effected the enlistment, appointment, or separation of the person named;
(2) That this person was ineligible for this enlistment, appointment, or separation because it was prohibited by law, regulation, or order; and (3) That the accused knew of the ineligibility at the time of the enlistment, appointment, or separation.
However: “It must be proved that the enlistment, appointment, or separation was prohibited by law, regulation, or order when effected and that the accused then knew that the person enlisted, appointed, or separated was ineligible for the enlistment, appointment, or separation.”
It may be a slim point of law, but Grayson seems to have operated just this side of breaking it, as advised by Marine counsel. Whether the judge and jury feel that a more overriding matter of an officer’s honor is at stake remains to be seen.
Curious what you boys (and Girl) think of post 333 above.
I guess the big question is whether a panel of Marine officers will hold Lt Grayson to a nonlegal standard of honor. If so, will they punish him with five years in prison?
I’m no legal eagle, which is obvious by now...
But, from my reading of the rule and the information presented in testimony, the Lt was NOT under orders to not separate from the service at the time. Therefore, no violation committed.
An man cant be held accountable for another’s inability to do his damn job and pass down the orders required.
No orders in effect, no violation can come from not obeying the order.
That’s my understanding of the issue. I could be wrong though. I got in enough trouble enough times during my enlistment to know I can get a bit sideways to the particulars without really meaning to.
First, there is no reason for this to be part of the Haditha trial. It should be thrown out for that reason alone.
Second, the “who is known to him to ineligible...” seems to control this. After seeking expert counsel from the military legal system itself, Grayson began processing separation paperwork. It could not be said that Grayson KNEW himself to be ineligible. He did not hide his legal troubles from the counselor, but rather, he was very clear about it. Despite that, the counselor told him he was still eligible.
Grayson isn’t just being semantically cute if he were to maintain that he considered himself eligible for separation. He was TOLD that he was eligible by counsel fully aware of the facts. Therefore, what Grayson knew was that he was eligible, not ineligible.
Third, it is selective prosecution. The article implicates the military lawyer just as much as it does Grayson. “Any person” includes all parties...and that would seem to include the lawyer. (And the lawyer, OBVIOUSLY, has zero connection to Haditha.)
shocker - another Briones in their midst... yet this honorable hero has been subjected to the worst kind of innuendo and slander. will the military charge Laughner with perjury?
More likely that the prosecutors simply failed to follow through on the detail of alleging all the elements of the crime. Don't allege all the elements and the defense has no obligation to bring up that fact or defend against it.
A person is not guilty of a crime unless all the elements of the alleged crime are present. If all the elements are not alleged, that is an impossibility.
Therefore, the judge had no choice but to dismiss the obstruction of justice charge.
This section of the code cannot possibly apply to Grayson. If you know how to constue laws, is really pretty simple; but not to a lay person.
Grayson would be the "person named". The accused would be the person(s) who attempted to "effect the separation". Since Grayson was not processing his own paperwork, he could not possibly be guilty of such a crime.
Doesn't mean a dishonest prosecutor wouldn't try to slip that by a judge or jury; but a good defense attorney wouldn't let it slide by unnoticed. I suspect the government never imagined these guys would be able to obtain such good attorneys.
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.