Jury gets case of Marine accused of killing POW

NC Times ^ | April 8, 2009 | Mark Walker

[jazusamo]

CAMP PENDLETON ----- A panel of eight Marine officers is deliberating the fate of a sergeant accused of killing an Iraqi insurgent prisoner of war in what a prosecutor acknowledged is a "tough case."

During his closing argument in the trial of 26-year-old Sgt. Ryan Weemer, prosecutor Capt. Nick Gannon suggested that at minimum, the 26 year-old Marine is guilty of voluntary manslaughter in the 2004 incident in the city of Fallujah.

Gannon said two statements Weemer made to investigators in 2006 contain no mention of self-defense. Weemer's attorney has said self-defense is what drove his client's actions.

"This case was about following the rules when it's really hard to follow the rules," Gannon told the jury. "But you need look no further than the two statements provided by the accused as evidence of his guilt."

~snip~

Weemer's lead attorney Paul Hackett countered in his closing argument that his client killed in self-defense and jurors had sufficient cause to believe that version of events. He pointed to two witnesses who testified that Weemer told them the prisoner had "lunged" for his gun, prompting him to shoot the man in the chest.

"This is not the house next door," Hackett said of what the Marines confronted in Fallujah that day. "These guys were there to kill Marines."

Hackett rejected an intimation from Gannon that Weemer killed the detained man as a vengeful act for having seen his best friend, Lance Cpl. Juan Segura, killed by a sniper's bullet earlier that day.

[jazusamo]

Sgt. Ryan Weemer

[jazusamo]

Sgt. Weemer Ping!

[A.A. Cunningham]

Weemer's lead attorney Paul Hackett

Wonder if this is the same Paul Hackett who called Bush a chicken hawk?

[Squantos]

All commissioned officers or interlaced with NCO’s as well ?

[jazusamo]

The panel is all commissioned officers. Am not aware why some NCO’s were not requested.

[jazusamo]

I would guess so.

[Big_Monkey]

"A panel of eight Marine officers

All officers would be unusual. I wonder if this is just poor reporting, or if there are no NCO's on the jury. If it is indeed all officers, It would be interesting to hear the defense's strategy in this regard.

[Big_Monkey]

Well. Judging from the other posts, apparently great minds do think alike.

[DoughtyOne]

Sounds like Sgt: Benefit of the Doubt to me.

[jazusamo]

It’s been reported several times this way. I understand an enlisted man has to request some NCO’s or the panel is all officers.

[Big_Monkey]

"Wonder if this is the same Paul Hackett who called Bush a chicken hawk?

It is not.

[jazusamo]

Correct, the conviction has to be beyond a reasonable doubt and I believe there’s reasonable doubt.

[Squantos]

So much for a Jury of your peers....... guess it’s better than being tossed to a civilian jury .

[Big_Monkey]

"I understand an enlisted man has to request some NCO’s or the panel is all officers.

It's the enlisted man's right under the UCMJ to have at least 1/3 of his jury be comprised of enlisted personnel. Of course, those would have to be enlisted personnel that are senior to him in rank. His defense would have to had waived this right for it to be all officers.

In my experience, it's not unheard of, but is unusual. Then again, I've never known a marine to stand trial for a POW death. So, we're in somewhat uncharted waters here.

[jazusamo]

It is not.

Thanks, I thought it was.

[Big_Monkey]

To me, this screams reasonable doubt. But, in a General Court Martial, conviction does not have to be by unanimous consent. It only takes 2/3 to convict. Which is what makes the no enlisted personnel on the jury that much more interesting.

[Big_Monkey]

"Thanks, I thought it was.

Yeah. I've seen pictures of Weemer with his defense counsel, and none of the men were that Paul Hackett.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Jazusamo.

[BlueLancer]

"It's the enlisted man's right under the UCMJ to have at least 1/3 of his jury be comprised of enlisted personnel. Of course, those would have to be enlisted personnel that are senior to him in rank. His defense would have to had waived this right for it to be all officers."

Close, but not quite on ...
The default position for all court-martial cases is an all officer panel. The accused has the option to request that the panel be composed of one-third enlisted personnel, all of whom must be senior in rank and not from his company-sized unit. The accused also has the option to request a trial by military judge alone.

However, in the event that the accused makes neither of these requests, the court will proceed with an all-officer panel.

We've had cases where the accused, at an earlier arraignment, requested trial by military judge alone and that forum was granted. However, before the case actually went to trial, the accused went AWOL. Because he had been arraigned, the case could proceed in his absence, but it could no longer be heard by the military judge alone and, since he had not made a request for enlisted personnel to panel members, the case proceeded with a not guilty plea before an all-officer panel.

US Army Court Reporter: 1978-1995
Department of Defense Civilian Court Reporter: 1995-present

--------------------------------------------------------

RESISTOR

Swear allegiance to the flag, whatever flag they offer;
Never hint at what you really feel.
Teach the children quietly for, someday, sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still.

Der Elite Møøsënspåånkængrüppen ØberKømmändø (EMØØK)

Samauri Court Reporter

[DoughtyOne]

I would read this as the brass wanting a rigid ‘by the book’ determination. “Let’s not allow a ‘walked in his shoes’ viewpoint to creep in here.”