And make sure the seatbelt is snug.
Posted on 08/23/2013 6:27:42 AM PDT by don-o
FORT HOOD —
Yesterday at about 5:20 p.m. the call came into the media center: the military jury deciding the fate of Maj. Nidal Hasan was ready to reconvene. A group of journalists hastily convened and speed-walked toward the courthouse, about a quarter mile away, anxiously anticipating a verdict.
The atmosphere in the courtroom was heavy: A small group of family members sat quietly as prosecutors stared straight ahead. Hasan stroked his beard and occassionally leaned in to whisper with his lead standby attorney, Lt. Col. Kris Poppe. We sat in near silence for about 15 long minutes.
As we now know, the jurors needed more time to deliberate and had merely reconvened in open court in order to ask for the written statement of officer Mark Todd to be read back to them.
But expectations are high that Day 14 of the Hasan court-martial will indeed bring a verdict. There is no doubt the 13 high-ranking Army officers are taking their duty seriously. They are paying such close attention that yesterday they pointed out a spelling error in a middle name of one of the victims that prosecutors and court officials had overlooked.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
Unless I'm misunderstanding,or misreading,what "jagusafr" said there is,at least,a problem with such a scenario in a court martial.Perhaps at some point he'll respond to my earlier post and we'll if I need remedial reading classes! ;-)
My first thought also.
They are busy filling out the paperwork to inform Obama of his promotion and exactly which medals they are awarding to him.
My personal favorite is Apache justice.
That is correct: in every criminal jury trial, the judge admonishes the jury that “what the attorneys say in opening statements and closing arguments is not evidence. In reaching your verdict, you are to consider only the evidence and sworn testimony before you”, or words to that effect, depending on jurisdiction. Since he didn’t testify and he’s acting as his own attorney, his statements cannot be considered in determining innocence or guilt. It is at times (like this case) a Chinese wall, a legal fiction, but that’s the very reason the court martial panel needs to be very deliberate.
Sure we have the right to defense counsel, but as I understand it, this vermin pretty much signed off on every accusation DURING the trial.
It's a damned shame we have to CYA in an obvious situation.
And covered him in Bacon.
And make sure the seatbelt is snug.
Is it pc to hang a disabled criminal?
I understand the frustration. But, I value our justice system beginning with presumption of innocence through burden of proof.
I agree with “better a guilty man go free than an innocent man be convicted.”
(General statements here - Hasan’s guilt is apparent. But, the process must be followed)
Which type? Staking them to an anthill and painting them with honey? Wrapping them in a leather blanket and wetting the blanket? So much creativity for such a small tribe.
A court martial is regulated by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Nowhere does it say that admissions or confessions must be given under oath to be admissible. Such a requirement would eliminate 99% of all admissions.
In the response that "jagusafr" just sent to me regarding my original question to him (post #26) there appears to be at least one exception to what you're saying.Given that he's a lawyer,a former military lawyer at that,I'm inclined to accept the accuracy of his statement.I don't understand the logic behind the concept he was describing but then there's very,*very* many things about the law that I don't understand so I'll just add that to the list.
btt
So am I.
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.