MILITARY: Fallujah defendant admits killing, pleads guilty to dereliction of duty

N C TIMES ^ | MARK WALKER

[Dubya]

A Marine on Tuesday admitted killing an unarmed prisoner during a 2004 battle for the Iraqi city of Fallujah, but he is not expected to receive any jail time and could leave the service with an honorable discharge, his attorney said.

Sgt. Jermaine Nelson's admission came as part of an agreement that saw him plead guilty to two counts of dereliction of duty for violating the military's rules of engagement and ignoring the laws of armed conflict with regard to treatment of enemy prisoners.

Two other men accused of murder for the deaths of three other detainees in the same incident were each acquitted in separate trials.

[Dubya]

Jermaine Nelson, left, walks with his attorneys towards a hearing in February at Camp Pendleton in Oceanside.

(North County Times file photo)

[Dubya]

SEMPER FI
Sgt. Jermaine Nelson
God bless you.

[Dubya]

Fallujah was a flashpoint in the Iraq war. In early 2004, insurgents ambushed and killed three Blackwater Security civilian contractors and hung two of their corpses from a bridge.

[Dubya]

U.S. forces left the city shortly thereafter at the request of the Iraqi government. Six months later, U.S. troops returned and launched a massive fight to retake the city. The resistance was overcome by late December, and several Camp Pendleton Marines were later honored with awards for valorous actions. Ninety-five U.S. troops were killed and more than 600 were wounded in the Fallujah battle, according to officials.

[taillightchaser]

There is another side to this story. I would love to hear his side of it. I am getting tired of seeing our troops being prosecuted for fighting a war. And I’m sure it will get worse with the current slimes in charge.

[Psalm 144]

I hope defense counsel was smart enought to make it an Alford plea.

[Dubya]

I am getting tired of seeing our troops being prosecuted for fighting a war.

It is a shame the way American troops have been and are being treated.

[Dubya]

Alford plea

What is that please?

[SunkenCiv]

but he is not expected to receive any jail time and could leave the service with an honorable discharge

[Psalm 144]

From wikipedia: “In the law of the United States, an Alford plea is a plea in criminal court in which the defendant does not admit the act and asserts innocence, but admits that sufficient evidence exists with which the prosecution could likely convince a judge or jury to find the defendant guilty. Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

Basically the defendant submits to judgement but does not admit guilt. The Alford plea preserves the right to an appeal which is waived in a conventional plea of guilt. A guilty plea is also a formal admission to factual guilt, whereas an Alford plea basically says the defendant is unable to mount a defense (lack of evidence or what have you)and the State has sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

The preservation of the right to an appeal and the denial of guilt are the key differences.

[Thebaddog]

He’s quite a sharp looking young man. I hope he does well in life after this test.

[optiguy]

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/27/commentary/op-eds/doc4a1d3131350ff552233813.txt

[Dubya]

Thank you I hope he did that.

[Dubya]

Me too.

[Dubya]

Thanks

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the info....he must have had a decent lawyer.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #10,....thanks.

[rcrngroup]

Upon receiving an Alford plea from a defendant, the court may immediately pronounce the defendant guilty and impose sentence as if the defendant had otherwise been convicted of the crime.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

Basically the defendant submits to judgement but does not admit guilt. The Alford plea preserves the right to an appeal which is waived in a conventional plea of guilt.

Personally that doesn't sound like such a hot deal to me, since you can still end up behind bars for 50 years, and your only recourse is to file appeals, which will likely be rejected by the same politically correct monkey trial system that put you there in the first place. I think he would have been better to fight this unless he believes that he is guilty and this is his best option.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks!

[Talisker]

Versus no recourse whatever under the same conditions?

He may well have an explanation but just lacks proof. Time could give him a number of things - more witnesses, an eventual lower threshold for conviction, whatever. If you're going to go to jail for 50 years, the knowledge that you can still fight makes all the difference to whether you can stand the time.