Government Appeals Military Judge’s Decision to Dismiss Charges Against LtCol Chessani

Defend Our Marines ^ | July 29, 2008 | Nathaniel R. Helms

[RedRover]

Marine Corps prosecutors have asked a military appeals court to reverse a lower court decision to dismiss criminal charges against the highest ranking officer to face criminal charges in the so-called “Haditha Massacre” affair.

The incident occurred on November 19, 2005 at Haditha, Iraq after one Marine was killed and two others from a squad of 12 infantrymen were wounded by a remotely detonated roadside bomb. During the Marines’ counterattack against the hidden assailants 24 Iraqis, including 15 civilians, were killed in the cross-fire.

The government seeks to reinstate criminal charges of dereliction of duty and orders violations against Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani, the veteran infantry officer in command at the time. Prosecutors had until midnight Monday to file their appeal with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., according to civilian defense attorney Brian Rooney.

The Marine Corps has not yet responded to a Defend Our Marines inquiry regarding the basis of the government’s appeal.

However, lawyers familiar with the case opined that the government has claimed that the military judge erred when he shifted the burden of proof from the defense to the government to prove that unlawful command influence was not a factor in deciding to prosecute the career Marine from Rangely, Colorado.

Rooney said Monday that Chessani’s joint military-civilian defense team will take the “unusual step” of asking for permission to make oral arguments in front of the appeals court before
it rules on the government’s motion. He expects it will take three to six months for the court to rule on the defense request.

On June 17, Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom dismissed all charges against Chessani without prejudice. He ruled that Gen. James N. Mattis, the convening authority and final arbiter in Chessani’s case, was unlawfully influenced by Col John Ewers, a Marine lawyer who investigated the Haditha incident.

Mattis testified on June 2 that he never discussed Chessani’s fate with Ewers after the career Marine lawyer was appointed the Staff Judge Advocate of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Pendleton while he was deciding whether or not to prosecute Chessani. Ewers and Mattis have a long, close professional relationship.

Ewers testified that he attended numerous, closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case was discussed with other lawyers of lesser rank and stature. The defense convinced Folsom that Ewers’ presence during the discussions unlawfully influenced Mattis to bring criminal charges against the former commander of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines.

[RedRover]

Nat Helms is a Contributing Editor to Defend Our Marines. He is a Vietnam veteran, former police officer, war correspondent, and, most recently, author of My Men Are My Heroes: The Brad Kasal Story (Meredith Books, 2007).

[pissant]

What a crooked bunch of A-holes.

[RedRover]

[dynachrome]

“three to six months for the court to rule’

Slow torure for a fine Marine.

[jazusamo]

I can’t help but believe the persecution (Sullivan) is just doing this to harass LtCol Chessani, it’s not right!

[jazusamo]

If you would like to help with the civilian lawyer’s legal fees for the
Haditha Marines you can do so by going to these sites.

SSgt. Frank Wuterich
LtCol. Jeffrey Chessani
Defend Our Marines

[olezip]

On June 17, Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom dismissed all charges against Chessani without prejudice. He ruled that Gen. James N. Mattis, the convening authority and final arbiter in Chessani’s case, was unlawfully influenced by Col John Ewers, a Marine lawyer who investigated the Haditha incident.

The military gets its funding from the Congress. As a result the military wants to keep in good standing with key Congressmen such as Rep. Murtha. Unfortunately Murtha is the force behind the Generals who are pursuing with no justification, the case against a genuine hero, Col. Chessani.

The clearly corrupt congress has single digit approval numbers, yet we have nothing but empty suits on the Republican side of the aisle, including our President, IMO. He could stop this horrible travesty of justice in a moment, but then again we have two innocent border agents in prison. What a pity and disappointment to have such unenlightened or corrupt leaders! Who or what country are they trying to please I wonder?

[centurion316]

The United States Marine Corps is ruining the reputation that took years and the blood of many valiant Marines to build.

[RedRover]

And the result is that both the LtCol Chessani case and the SSgt Wuterich case may not come to trial until sometime in 2009—five years after the incident took place.

[xzins]

However, lawyers familiar with the case opined that the government has claimed that the military judge erred when he shifted the burden of proof from the defense to the government to prove that unlawful command influence was not a factor in deciding to prosecute the career Marine from Rangely, Colorado.

So, the error in law (as the gov't sees it) is that Folsum made a mistake saying that the prosecutors (gov't) had to prove that their decision to prosecute Chessani was in no way affected by UCI. The prosecutors had to prove that UCI was not present. (Why would the defense want to prove that UCI was not present? Someone help me here?) Further, why would the defense have to prove that UCI was present, when all that is required is that they demonstrate the "appearance" of UCI?

The decision to prosecute Chessani is only part of it. The UCI influenced the very nature of the prosecution of Chessani. It influenced the decision to continue the prosecution, the manner in which the case was prosecuted, and the extent to which the government went in its prosecution. (The most investigators ever, millions of dollars spent, etc.)

All of these are related to Mattis' decision to allow Ewers into the room to influence anything that did get discussed or might have been discussed or recommended back to Mattis.

Finally, if Ewers is part of the government's appeal, has been consulted in any way at any step, or has had any form of presence whatsoever, then that seems to me to be a continuation of the UCI. Only now it is infecting the appeal.

[brityank]

Outstanding jpeg pic, Red; thanks.

[billmor]

Ok...Just makes you wonder why Col Folsom did not dismiss the charges against Lt Col Chessani WITH prejudice so the government could not reopen it’s case against LC Chessani ?...He made a half baked ruling in that case when he could have closed it and sealed it shut..

Secondly why shouldnt the burden of proof NOT be on the prosecution to prove there was undue command influence when they have all the records, the notes, memos of the conversations, remembrances,etc...The defense has nothing at hand except whatever they can beg borrow or scrape up...The Defense has no burden of proof to prove their man is innocent..It’s the other way around: the Government has to prove he is guilty, and they have to do it fairly as possible as officers of the Court...They are trying to re-prosecute an innocent man and that is a disgrace to the Marine Corps judicial system...Are they that indebted to SecDef Winters and to John Murtha?...If they are, they should resign now, for the good of the Corps...

[Lancey Howard]

The prosecutors had to prove that UCI was not present. (Why would the defense want to prove that UCI was not present? Someone help me here?) Further, why would the defense have to prove that UCI was present, when all that is required is that they demonstrate the "appearance" of UCI?

This appeal is simply a vindictive shot in the dark by surly prosecutors. The prosecutors are trying to turn the tables and submit that the defense must prove that there WAS undue command influence.

That turd won't float.

Imagine a situation where a judge is presiding over the murder trial of a killer who is accused of murdering the judge's own beloved son. The judge swears he will be totally impartial. Would the defense be expected to prove that the judge would not be impartial? Of course not.

Judge Folsom has already ruled that there was at least the appearance of UCI and then he ruled that the prosecutors did not succeed in proving that that UCI had no bearing on the proceedings.

Case closed.

[lilycicero]

I see you have been creative again :)

Jedi Master you are.

[Dick Vomer]

we need the name of the prosecution and the others that want this to go on.

including staffers and investigators.

We need to make the list public and on the 'net. That way in 2-4 years when these assh#les are running for congress or the senate we know how it all came about. That way when they're on a congressional staff or legislative staff, we can call them out.

We need to make sure that we declare war on all of the worthless b#tches that are pulling this along.

Murtha and the democrats are just evil. They'll get there just reward when they realize they have no honor.

These others are hopiing to parlay this into a political future.....let's give them a future of unemployment and disgrace.

Spread the word, get the names. Post the names.... shine the lights on these cockroaches.

[Lancey Howard]

What you said BUMP.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

Since our government is for the people, of the people and by the people this person says they’re wrong. I’d also like to cordially invite those in government who want to keep prosecuting these fine Americans to go have sex with themselves in the most painful way possible and then kill themselves because they’re too incompetent to remain in the gene pool. Yes ladies, that is the nice version.

[SeaHawkFan]

At least he is still collecting a pay check and earning a bigger retirement check. Even if reversed, there is no way he will get convicted in a court martial.

[ViLaLuz]

bookmark

[Girlene]

"It is a dark time for justice...." LOL. Great ping, Red.

However, lawyers familiar with the case opined that the government has claimed that the military judge erred when he shifted the burden of proof from the defense to the government to prove that unlawful command influence was not a factor in deciding to prosecute the career Marine from Rangely, Colorado.

Hmmmmmm, the basis for the prosecutors' appeal is that it was the defense atty's job to prove there WAS unlawful command influence? Regardless of whose "job" it was to prove UCI, the judge found the appearance of, or actual UCI existed. It would be impossible for the judge to turn a blind eye at this point to UCI in his courtroom. I'm not sure how this appeal would get the dismissal for UCI reversed.