| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Defense Gets Files in 'Fragging' Case |
| 2007-01-09 |
| A military judge granted defense lawyers access to computer files Monday that attorneys said are needed to defend a soldier charged with killing two superior officers in Iraq. New York National Guard Sgt. Alberto B. Martinez, 39, of Troy, N.Y., is the only soldier known to be charged with killing his direct superior officers in Iraq during the war, a crime known as "fragging." Martinez is accused of killing Capt. Phillip Esposito, 30, of Suffern, N.Y., and 1st Lt. Louis Allen, 34, of Milford, Pa., by setting off grenades and a mine in their room at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces in June 2005. They were his superior officers in the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard. Defense lawyer Maj. John Gregory had sought access to classified and unclassified files, as well as a forensic computer expert to help. The judge said the defense should have copies of unclassified files and greater access to classified material, and suggested he would assign a qualified agent from the Army's Criminal Investigative Command to the defense team. The judge, Col. Patrick Parrish, didn't rule on a defense motion to appoint a crime scene investigator. Last week, Parrish ordered the government to pay for an independent investigator for the defense. Gregory said the defense wants to hire a former director of the Oregon State Police Crime Lab to do forensic tests. Capt. John Benson, a prosecutor, argued that the defense has had access to government experts who examined evidence and the crime scene. In a similar case, a jury at Fort Bragg sentenced 101st Airborne Division Sgt. Hasan Akbar to death for killing two officers and wounding 14 soldiers in March 2003. He threw grenades into troop tents and fired on soldiers at a camp in Kuwait. Akbar wasn't under the command of the officers who were killed. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 No need to be sorry, DN. I'm just not used to military judges dicking around with civilian theatrics, so I'd forgotten that Akbar got a change of venue due to concerns that he'd be "unable to get a fair trial" at Campbell, or some shit like that. Worked out great for him too, LOL. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-01-09 17:44 |
| #8 Pro, Agreed, but then I now have no idea what your criticism of the article is. I assumed you were referring to the final line "a jury sentenced..." |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2007-01-09 12:47 |
| #7 Dread, I've sat on both. At no time in a jury trial was I as a member of the jury able to ask further questions of the witness or request witnesses to be [re] summoned for further questioning. The judge in a courts martial acts as the technical administrator, but the tribunal has powers above that of a civilian jury which simply sits and listens. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-09 11:41 |
| #6 Sorry, exJAG, but the court-martial did occur at Fort Bragg. Procopius, a general court-martial does indeed have a jury (or panel) that determines innocence or guilt. The court-martial is merely the proceeding. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2007-01-09 11:18 |
| #5 From what I can gather on the neet this guy had problems before he deployed. I may be wrong but the circumstnces point to his guilt and if so they should hang him and Akbar together. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2007-01-09 10:29 |
| #4 And its not a jury, its a courts martial. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-01-09 09:27 |
| #3 "a jury at Fort Bragg sentenced 101st Airborne Division Sgt. Hasan Akbar" Ummm, that would be Fort Campbell. Sheesh. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-01-09 07:57 |
| #2 My taxes. :-( |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-01-09 03:48 |
| #1 So, where's the money for the defense coming from? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-01-09 02:33 |