Replies

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.

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.