Posted on 06/09/2008 6:32:39 PM PDT by RedRover
Attorneys representing Marine Lt. Col Jeffrey Chessani will find out June 16 whether the presiding judge in the “Haditha Massacre” case will grant a defense motion to dismiss his charges because of undue command influence.
If Folsom denies the defense motion Chessani will stand general court-martial July 21 for alleged dereliction of duty and orders violations, said Richard Thompson, chief counsel of the civilian law firm representing him.
The veteran combat Marine is the highest ranking officer to be charged with a crime in the discredited massacre investigation. Four enlisted men and three officers under his command were also charged with war crimes. Five of them have already been exonerated during pre-trail legal maneuvers and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson was found not guilty last week of a laundry list of related charges.
The day before Grayson went to trial, military judge Lt. Col. Steven Folsom deferred making a decision on a defense motion by Chessani’s lawyers asking that the case be dismissed “with prejudice” for alleged undue command influence in the convening authority’s decision to prosecute the former commander of 3rd battalion, 1st Marines in Iraq.
Even with a favorable decision by Folsom, Chessani is not out of the woods, Thompson said. Folsom could dismiss the charges “without prejudice,” leaving the door open for Chessani to be charged again.
One member of Chessani’s defense team noted that government prosecutors have already shown they will go to any length to obtain a conviction in the broadest, most expensive criminal investigation in contemporary military history.
“Why wouldn’t they?” he said. “We are talking about prosecutors still trying to maintain the fiction there was no incoming fire after the IED went off and that the huge firefight on Viper was a separate incident.”
Four enlisted members of a rifle squad Chessani command killed 15 civilians and eight insurgents hiding among them after a remotely detonated IED killed a squad member and wounded two others riding in a convoy. About 500 meters away on a road called Viper another squad of Marines was embroiled in a morning-long grenade fight with insurgents that left nine Marines wounded.
The ambushed infantrymen were later accused by Time magazine and Congressman John Murtha with going berserk; hunting down innocent civilians and shooting them in cold blood. The subsequent investigation showed that none of the circumstances cited by Time and Murtha proved to be true.
Last week 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson, the first of three defendants to face general court-martial in the Haditha incident, was found not guilty of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and attempting to obtain a fraudulent discharge by a seven-member jury panel of fellow Marine officers.
His exoneration followed a 30-month, multi-million dollar, world-wide investigation and five-day court-martial at Camp Pendleton that took the panel five hours to dispose of.
Grayson was attached to Chessani’s command in Iraq as an intelligence officer. He is the sixth of eight original defendants cleared of any wrongdoing in the incident. The panel's rapid verdict put the already weak prosecution case in total disarray, several attorneys involved in the case said.
Chessani is awaiting general court-martial for dereliction of duty and orders violations for allegedly failing to investigate and report the incident. He faces dismissal from the service, loss of all retirement benefits, and three years in prison if convicted.
The criminal charges against Chessani stem from a house-to-house, room-by-room battle that four of his enlisted Marines engaged in on November 19, 2005, after being ambushed by insurgents in Haditha. In the day long battle that followed one Marine was killed and 11 others from Kilo Company, 3/1 were wounded.
Folsom’s ruling follows testimony last Monday by Gen. James N. Mattis and the conspicuous absence of Lt. Gen Samuel Helland in the matter. The prosecution called Mattis to refute defense claims he was unduly influenced by Col John Ewers, the Marine lawyer who investigated Chessani’s command in Iraq for an Army general and later became Mattis’ personal legal counselor as Staff Judge Advocate of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force.
Before being appointed the 1st MEF SJA Ewers was assigned to investigate the alleged massacre at Haditha, Iraq in the winter of 2006 for Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell. He was ordered to look into the matter following allegations by a Time magazine reporter that Chessani had covered up the November 19, 2005 murders of 24 innocent civilians by a squad of Marines under his command.
Ewers was still Mattis’ personal attorney when Mattis decided to bring charges against Chessani on December 21, 2006. He remained in the position when Helland took over responsibility for prosecuting Chessani after Mattis was promoted to four-star rank last November 1 and transferred.
“The prosecution made a colossal blunder not calling Lt. Gen. Helland to testify,” opined Thompson, who presides over the Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center. “Folsom has already decided there is evidence of inappropriate command influence and it is now the prosecution’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn’t occur. Without Helland’s testimony to corroborate Mattis they failed to meet that burden.”
Mattis testified that he was not influenced by Ewers. Last month Ewers testified that he sat in on at least 25 meetings between Mattis and the lawyers from Central Command counseling Mattis about the Haditha investigation while Mattis was in command of both organizations.
Mattis brought the charges against Chessani under the aegis of Central Command where Ewers ostensibly had no authority or influence. At the time Lt. Col. Bill Riggs was the SJA of Central Command.
The defense maintains that Ewers’ mere presence at the meetings by itself represents undue command influence because he outranked the lawyers who were advising Gen. Mattis.
According to both officers’ testimony Ewers was a potted plant that sat mute while Mattis was counseled by Riggs and other attorneys of lesser ranks from Central Command. Mattis told the court he remained an island unto himself and never asked or received legal advice from Ewers while he was formulating his decision.
It is not the first time undue command influence has been charged. Riggs found himself in hot water last summer after he contacted Lt. Col. Paul Ware, the investigating officer in a related case, and criticized him for holding the government to too high of a standard when evaluating the charges against an enlisted Marine.
Ware, the IO in the murder case against exonerated Marine LCpl Justin Sharratt, took the unusual action of revealing what he viewed as an egregious case of undue command influence by Riggs.
“I viewed Lt. Col. Riggs’ comments as inappropriate and imprudent. … I was … offended and surprised by this conversation,” Ware responded in an email.
Subsequently Riggs recused himself from that case.
Military courts consider unlawful command influence the most egregious violation of military justice because it irreparably taints the opinions of prospective jurors, Richard Thompson said.
According to Thompson, Folsom’s determination that there was evidence of undue command influence forces prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the facts upon which the unlawful command influence is based are untrue; (2) those facts do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings.
It’s a make-believe war, all about ego trips.
In an actual war, people fight their enemies and not their friends.
Do you even have any idea who Major Donohue is? Do you know how much money he’s raised and who he’s raised it for?
But you’re willing to help trash a retired Marine over a piddling non-issue. I don’t see anything admirable in that.
Just so that you know that picture is unaltered in any way, those green rings are the blade tip electroluminescent formation lights.
???
wtf?
He’s talking out his ass big time.
Is there a piece of the case the Judge could dismiss due to UCI and other pieces that he could allow prosecution on?
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
Specification 1 (Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to accurately report and thoroughly investigate a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines under his command. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years).
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
Specification: (Willful dereliction of duty): willfully failed to report, correct, update or supplement information about the incident in Haditha; willfully failed to accurately report to higher headquarters that the incident constituted a possible or suspected violation of the law of war; and willfully failed to direct a thorough investigation into the incident. (Maximum punishment: dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months)
re #42...Excellent conclusion...If Ewers was simply there to be a potted plant, they dame well better have a picture of him looking like a potted plant as proof...also-is there any transcript of the prosecution’s meetings that Ewers attended?...
That tv appearance Ewers made should seal the box on this case..
One more thing: Memo to JAGs...it’s not Guilty Until Proven Innocent !
Jaz;RedRover;SmoothSailing- great work guys and thanks for the Ping...
You’re welcome, bill!
I LOVE you redrover.
Maybe the judge could split a hair on the “willful” versus “wrongful” distinction between the two charges.
If he decided for some reason that animus toward Chessani was the danger represented by Ewers, then he could say that the “wrongful” charge was simply about lack of adherence to policy which would have been true no matter who the lawyer would be, whereas the “willful” charge could be animus about the internal (personal) mental make-up of Chessani himself.
I know I’m reaching, but it’s the only thing I could try to draw a distinction between.
hehehe...Great observation....Betcha dupa they were told not to call Lt. Gen. Helland...
You are a good FRiend.
Sir...put yourself in a JAG officer’s place while pleading a case..Would you want the Marine Judge and Marine Jury to know (if you were)an ACLU Democrat pledged to defend any person’s rights but also determined to pull down the military?..You would be lucky not to have your ****s handed to you.
Lancey Howard is right..There is a lot to learn about how the world works...
Aw, shucks...
Not hard.
.Would you want the Marine Judge and Marine Jury to know (if you were)an ACLU Democrat pledged to defend any person’s rights but also determined to pull down the military
Persons "determined to pull down the military" (regardless of affiliation) do not get through the accessions procedure nor the rigors of training.
I learned it all from you.
Thanks for the added info, the pic is gorgeous.
Can you point me to the original photo?
BTW, there was an Air Force Osprey at Rockford Airfest last weekend, and those engines leak a ton of oil, or at least they do if they’re locked about 20 degrees forward of vertical.
Your great and I heard that from a good friend of mine up near your neck of the woods.
If you mean who I think you mean, he’s a terrific guy and will deliver what he promises (how surprising is that?).
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.