Posted on 11/09/2009 4:08:48 PM PST by LA Woman3
FORT HOOD (November 9, 2009)John P. Galligan, a retired military attorney who now practices criminal defense law said he was contacted Monday by the brother of the man accused opening fire Thursday at Fort Hood, killing 13 and injuring 29.
Galligan, a retired Army Col., who practices in Belton and specializes in courts-martial, said Hasans family asked him to represent the Army psychiatrist, who was awake and able to talk Monday.
Galligan said he was hoping to meet with Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan later Monday at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio.
He told News 10 he informed military and government investigators that he is representing Hasan and that the Hasan not be questioned outside of his presence.
He said his main concern now is that Hasan gets adequate medical care.
Authorities won't say when charges would be filed or if Hasan would face military justice.
Galligan questions whether Hasan could get a fair trial anywhere, given the widespread attention to the case.
Galligan has represented soldiers in other high-profile cases.
In 2005, he defended two soldiers at Fort Bliss charged in the beating death of Afghan detainees.
In 2007, he represented a Fort Hood master sergeant accused of failing to take precautions during a training exercise in which a soldier died.
In 2006, Galligan challenged incumbent Bell County Judge Jon Burrows in the Republican primary, but lost 5,941-3,223.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody put a gun to this attorneys head to force him to represent this guy....Obviously, this attorney is a bottom feeder, looking for notoriety and a few bucks.
Defense attorneys defend the accused, guilty or not. This is a Constitutional right. Please refrain from showing your ignorance in the future.
I didn't suggest or imply what an attorneys tasks may or may not be...I only said this attorney had a choice as to represent or not represent this guy, which is accurate.
Please read my posts slowly in the future, to avoid appearing an ignorant fool.
Yes, but at the expense of the defendant. Guaranteed by the UCMJ.
Unlike yourself and most first graders I do not need to read out loud syllable by syllable to comprehend what I'm reading. I stand by my assessment of you.
Re #34 has his right to an opinion without your characterizing it as ignorant.
Re #34 did not question the accused’ right to counsel as you seem to imply.
I agree with Re #34 that this COL Galligan is a bottom feeder. Read his CV if you get around to it.
I hope Nidal Hasan fries to a crisp for what he “alledgedly” did. Just my opinion.
;^)
lol...Unlike your post, mine was 100 percent accurate, yours was not.
Please do read more carefully in the future.
Why thank you...
Hopefully, Mr. Webb does not practice law....lol
Interesting discussion over here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2382579/posts?page=41
We’re debating whether Hasan would be more likely to receive the death penalty in a Texas court than a military court.
I don't.
But tell me where did you learn what you know about practicing law? Apparently you watched way too much Perry Mason and assume that defense attorneys should ONLY take cases in which they believe their client is innocent (otherwise they are "bottom feeders").
ROFLMAO!
Thanks for the link! Without reading the replies yet.....my vote is Texas!
Is that legal? I thought a military person would have a current military lawyer.
This story was posted before the announcement that he would be charged in a military court.
Galligan retired from the military in 2001 with an attitude since it appears that he defends ONLY those whose accused crimes are prejudicial to good order and discipline under UCMJ.
BTW, I’m not a JAG but I am a JAG legal administrator and I review lots of records of trial from those who come up hot for drugs (love it when they get f**d over) to those accused of premeditated murder.
JMHO, his mission seems to be to throw sand in the gears of the ability of our wartime military’s ability to accomplish its mission.
Just my opinion.
;^)
I guess he isn't for Pelosi-care.
Well that's nice.
You have a clear pattern of making inaccurate assumptions, and wild inaccurate implications.
Please read my #34, slowly, and try to comprehend what is stated.
I did not suggest or even imply that attorneys should only take cases which they believe their clients are innocent.
Nor did I question the accused right to counsel.
Stop the baseless speculation and read #34.
of course you’re right. I AM a member of the liberal wing of the VRWC. I believe a person should get a fair trial before we hang ‘em.
Yes, a defendant can have a civilian attorney representing him in a court-martial, although he will also have a defense counsel from the Judge Advocate General of Fort Hood...
the infowarrior
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.