Posted on 01/27/2007 2:36:36 PM PST by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON ---- A hearing for a Marine lieutenant accused of assaulting three Iraqis took a dramatic turn Saturday when a witness called in his defense was told he could be facing criminal charges for allegedly lying.
Lance Cpl. Andrew Kraus was read his legal rights and informed that he might be charged with making a false official statement and committing perjury during his testimony in a hearing for 2nd Lt. Nathan Phan.
The accusation against Kraus came from the lead prosecutor, Maj. Donald Plowman, who told the court he was duty-bound to level the charge.
The hearing officer, Lt. Col. William Pigott, agreed.
After being read his rights, Kraus told Pigott he wanted a lawyer and was then led out of the courtroom.
Plowman's action came after the lance corporal testified under oath that he did not have any recollection of meeting with him in August, nor any memory of telling Plowman during that session that a sworn statement that implicated Phan in the assault was accurate.
Plowman told the court that the meeting had taken place and was witnessed by co-prosecutor, Capt. Nicholas Gannon, and that Kraus had affirmed during the meeting that his statement implicating Phan was accurate.
Kraus had been called by Phan's defense team after providing them with a signed, sworn affidavit that contends his original statement prepared by an agent of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service contained falsehoods and that he never told the agent that he had any knowledge of Phan committing an assault.
He was the third of three enlisted Marines to make such statements in an ongoing Article 32 hearing for Phan that will determine whether the 26-year-old lieutenant and platoon leader will face court-martial.
Two other enlisted Marines have also testified that statements attributed to them by the Navy and Marine Corps' civilian law enforcement agency contained things they never said that implicate Phan.
Those two Marines were not threatened with criminal charges stemming from the statements they gave in Iraq last spring during an investigation into the slaying of a 52-year-old Iraqi civilian in the village of Hamdania.
The assault allegation against Phan was an outgrowth of the homicide probe, in which five of the eight men charged have entered guilty pleas in negotiated agreements with prosecutors.
Phan, who commanded the platoon members charged in the April 26 killing of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, was not present when that incident took place and is no way connected to the slaying.
But members of the squad charged in that case have made statements that Phan and others assaulted three Iraqis in March and April of last year, resulting the charge against Phan. He also faces a charge of making a false official statement in connection with one of the alleged assault victims.
After Kraus was led from the courtroom, Pigott told the attorneys that he may urge the convening authority over the case, Lt. Gen. James Mattis, to order an investigation to determine how it came to be that the lance corporal and the two other enlisted Marines made what are considered official statements in Iraq against Phan and then denied having said things contained in those statements.
The veracity of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents who took those statements has been made a centerpiece of the defense's case.
David Sheldon, Phan's lead attorney, contends the enlisted Marines had no motivation to lie and that the law enforcement agency cannot prove the statements it attributes to them are accurate because it does not routinely audio or videotape witness statements nor interrogations of criminal suspects.
Sheldon told Pigott that he believed the Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents also should have been cautioned before they testified.
"Each witness should be read their rights," he said. "One (either the enlisted Marines or the agents) is telling the truth and one is not ---- there should be an investigation."
Pigott was not entirely clear as to whether he will ask for an investigation of the agents.
"I will likely recommend an investigation into this whole matter," he said.
Phan's attorneys maintain the Sacramento-area native is innocent and that the prosecution has failed in the hearing to present sufficient evidence for Pigott to recommend a court-martial.
The hearing is continuing this afternoon and may stretch into Sunday before it is completed. When it is finished, Pigott will consider all the evidence and make a written recommendation to Mattis, who can order Phan to trial, dismiss the case entirely or take some form of an administrative action.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
Wow, thanks for that! That's the first I've heard from a JAG for the defense. I APOLOGIZE!!! I'll post this as a thread.
No apology necessary. I imagine the "who's gonna do what" was carefully thought out since one counsel is still in the military and one isn't. I don't envy anyone who has to "hold fire" until they're in range...
You've done a wonderful job of keeping this thread going! Thank you!
I agree. It's difficult to really know just from reading news accounts and not being there in person but I got the feeling that the prosecutor threw out the perjury bit as a blustery attempt to cover for the inept behavior of the NCIS in this investigation. Namely the difference in Austin's notes and Bode's account that has been contested, just my feeling.
And now there's a new one, thanks to you. I've been checking the NC Times all day and must have missed it. I'll be pinging you in a minute.
What is going on is simple. We have traitors amongst us.
Our soliders are being treated as the enemy and the enemy treated as innocents. Our border patrol is prosecuted for doing their job and drug smugglers given immunity for the purpose. An outright traitor who stole and destroyed critical top secret documents relating to the worst domestic attack in U.S. history, is given 100 hours of community service by this Administration, rather than the appropriate 25 year prison sentence at Leavenworth.
Yet none dare call it treason.
Good find. What did you think of this?
From the North County Times, "Sheldon said statements made by Pigott on Saturday and Sunday that he believed the government agents were truthful was improper.
"I've never before seen an investigative officer comment on what he believes is the truthfulness of a witness during a hearing," the Washington attorney and U.S. Navy veteran said. "It's unprecedented.""
Sounds like the authority, Pigott, preciding over the hearing said he thought the NCIS agents/prosecutors were truthful. However, when Kraus contradicted their statements Pigott stopped his testimony and told him he could be charged with perjury. How does Pigott know which is telling the truth at this point?
The prosecutor claims he knows the guy is lying because there's a discrepancy between his signed statement and his courtroom testimony so he's going to charge him with lying on BOTH occasions??? A real mental giant, that one.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to check out this brand-new thread on the conclusion of Lt Phan hearing.
None are calling it treason, but lawyer David Sheldon is calling it "bullsh*t"!
See post 149! Brand-new thread with the latest news on this case!
That's just it. Given the testimony by an NCIS agent that the signed statement doesn't match his notes, the prosecutor's vouching for the truthfulness of his witness is rather illogical.
The import of the NCIS agent's statement that his notes didn't fully support the signed statement seems to have been lost on the prosecutor, who seems to erroneously perceive this as a "he said vs he said" kind of thing when it is nothing of the kind.
That's just it. Given the testimony by an NCIS agent that the signed statement doesn't match his notes, the prosecutor's vouching for the truthfulness of his witness is rather illogical.
The import of the NCIS agent's statement that his notes didn't fully support the signed statement seems to have been lost on the prosecutor, who seems to erroneously perceive this as a "he said vs he said" kind of thing when it is nothing of the kind.
Please, I would like to be on your ping list.
Agree it is illogical. But it is the convening authority, Pigott(or whatever he is called, I think of him as the judge), who vouches for the gov't witnesses but asks for an investigation of possible charges of perjury or false statements by Phan's Marine witnesses.
Pigott seemed to miss that the NCIS agent, Mike Austin, who took notes during an interrogation of Marine Faulkner did not match up with what NCIS agent Aaron Bode finally wrote up as the final statement regarding Faulkner. Pigott is only asking that Gen. Mattis review how NCIS prepared statements - not possible perjury or making a false statement by NCIS agent Aaron Bode. Sounds like the Marines had a lot to lose by standing up for Phan, NCIS is risking very little.
Does my take sound right?
Regrettably, I think your take is right --- I'm hoping that the investigation may widen "in the event", but it may not.
Welcome to the Haditha Marine ping list, BigDingo.
Thanks for putting me on the list and for the summary.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!
Love this!!!!
Thanks for the comic relief!
You're welcome. Welcome to Free Republic, by the way. I'm curious. How did you find us?
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.