Article

2007-02-08 Home Front: WoT

Mistrial Declared In Watada Court Martial

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by CrazyFool 2007-02-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The accusations of war crimes should see him facing a treason trial.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2007-02-07 20:17|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-02-07 20:17|| Front Page Top

#2 both charges are to be refiled, IIUC. Eevrything's on the table, including his stipulated confession. Bye, and good lawyering, asshole

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-02-07 20:47|| 2007-02-07 20:47|| Front Page Top

#3 Because much of the Army's evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.

Interesting. It was the prosecution that asked for the mistrial.

Posted by SteveS 2007-02-07 20:57|| 2007-02-07 20:57|| Front Page Top

#4 A flawed stipulation jeopardizes the prosecution's ability to make the charges stick, and Watada would have skated. So at this point, asking for a mistrial was a crappy but best available option.

Unfortunately, the longer it takes to convict him, the more the seditionists can prolong their agitprop campaign. Which, no doubt, was Watada's intention when he signed a stipulation he knew to be flawed.

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-08 02:39|| 2007-02-08 02:39|| Front Page Top

#5 Which, no doubt, was Watada's intention when he ~~signed a stipulation he knew to be flawed~~ joined the military after the invasion of Iraq, planning on pulling this stunt all along.

Minor correction.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-02-08 07:53|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-02-08 07:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Roger, RC. I covered that yesterday. There's gotta be a way to charge him with far more than missing movement and conduct unbecoming.

Good news is, Head seems to be much more particular about the evidence, now that he's in a position to have his rulings reversed. A mistrial sucks, but it's better than an overturned conviction, and the agitprop windfall therefrom.

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-08 08:36|| 2007-02-08 08:36|| Front Page Top

#7 exJAG,

Sir, I'm not sure I understand this - the Government requested a mistrial because Watada says he didn't understand the charges??

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-08 10:18|| 2007-02-08 10:18|| Front Page Top

#8 same story better reporting.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/6358693p-5674326c.html

Posted by Thealet Hupeatle2938 2007-02-08 10:43|| 2007-02-08 10:43|| Front Page Top

#9 From Thealet Hupeatle2938's link:
In a weird bit of courtroom drama, both parties agreed with each other that Head was wrong. Seitz and Army prosecutor Capt. Scott Van Sweringen said they believed the case could move forward, that Watadas admission to the facts of the case did not prevent him from trying to convince the panel that he had not committed a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At one point, an exasperated Van Sweringen told Head he was at a loss to make his point any clearer.

That certainly rams home Ms. exJAG's recollection of Head as not being overly competent.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-02-08 11:10|| 2007-02-08 11:10|| Front Page Top

#10 Not exactly, Mike. Before trial, the government and defense will agree to certain facts, to reduce the number of witnesses and save time. These are set out in a stipulation of fact ("stip"), which is typically drafted by the prosecutor.

The stip is then submitted to the judge, who has to be sure that the accused really intends to admit to these facts, in every point and detail. Here, an argument made by the defense alerted Head to the fact that Watada may not have intended to admit to certain facts.

Head is quoted as saying, you have to treat it essentially like a guilty plea because he admits to all the facts surrounding the offense." This strikes me as an overly cautious move by a new judge who is terrified of being reversed on appeal. Frequent reversals look bad on a judge's efficiency report (and I would imagine Head already has enough mediocre OERs).

Seems to me that the inconsistency merely puts that one limited point in dispute, shifting the burden back to the government to prove it. No need to toss everything out, so I can definitely understand why prosecutors are frustrated.

However, a mistrial is not necessarily to Watada's benefit. A re-trial will give prosecutors a chance to prefer additional charges and try for a harsher sentence. I am sure as heck hoping they use the additional time to develop evidence showing his malign intentions from the day he decided to go to OCS.

The defense's puffery about double jeopardy is a load of bull. You have to be acquitted for that to kick in, and a mistrial is not an acquittal. That sounds to me like a defense attorney who plans to spend many *billable* hours tossing out frivolous crapola to fuel the media spectacle.

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-08 11:52|| 2007-02-08 11:52|| Front Page Top

#11 The Left has already made this a political trial in their eyes. A lawyer interviewed on Fox yesterday, dammit I have a hard time remembering names, Said, "He made a political descision and will suffer the political consequences". His descision to refuse orders was not political and the consequences are not political. When he is sentenced he will be heralded as a Political Prisoner of the Bush Regime.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2007-02-08 11:54|| 2007-02-08 11:54|| Front Page Top

#12 Watada's defense team should be forced to prove that Bush lied, if that is his basis for believing that the war in Iraq is illegal.
That should nail the lid down on this case.

Posted by wxjames 2007-02-08 14:05|| 2007-02-08 14:05|| Front Page Top

#13 On one of the Seattle paper's blogs today, the comment was made, that rather than go through all the legal gyrations and surrounding press while the retrial gets underway, that Whinetada simply be given a new set of orders to Iraq and see if he refuses, again. If he refuses, then he is nailed dead to rights, and if he accepts, he will probably encounter a 'work accident' in the field.
I think exJAGs comments the other day may still come to pass, that the Judge is in over his head.
he is really trying to cover all bases for the ineventable appeal for when this POS loses.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-02-08 14:28|| 2007-02-08 14:28|| Front Page Top

#14 USN, I hope I'm wrong. Years ago, I thought Head was a fuck-up, and even today he is not, shall we say, a rising star in the JAG Corps.

However, I'm not there, and can't know every detail he knows, so I'm trying to suspend judgment. At the same time, I'm doing a little research, and I am not liking what I'm finding. I'll keep y'all posted.

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-08 15:14|| 2007-02-08 15:14|| Front Page Top

#15 Oh brother. For you masochists who like to read mumbo-jumbo, here's what the trial procedure regulation has to say:

1. The military judge should not accept a stipulation if there is any doubt of the accuseds or any other partys understanding of the nature and effect of the stipulation.

K, no problem.

2. If the military judge refuses to accept a stipulation, the parties should be granted a continuance to be able to gather proof on the issue.

K then, WTF??

3. "A mistrial may be declared as a matter of discretion when circumstances arising during
the proceedings make it manifestly necessary in the interest of justice. Examples of such
circumstances include: when court members are informed of inadmissible matters which are so prejudicial that a curative instruction would be inadequate; when the members themselves engage in prejudicial misconduct; or when the proceedings must be terminated because of some legal defect which cannot be cured.

"Mistrial is a drastic remedy and should be employed only when manifestly necessary to preserve the ends of justice.

Only in the extraordinary case in which the improper evidence is inflammatory or highly prejudicial to the extent that its impact cannot be erased reasonably from the minds of an ordinary person is there occasion for the judge to grant a
mistrial."

Jiminy Christmas. Head's decision may amount to abuse of discretion, which in turn could prevent a re-trial. More in a moment.

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-08 15:47|| 2007-02-08 15:47|| Front Page Top

#16 Yep, Head fucked it up good. To my amazement, the defense may now have pretty good grounds to claim double jeopardy:

"A second trial will be barred after declaration of a mistrial on grounds of former jeopardy only when (1) the grant was an abuse of discretion and (2) without the consent of the defense."

"We were ready to move forward with Lieutenant Watadas testimony, Seitz said. We were happy with the panel. We were happy with cross-examination of the governments witnesses. We didnt want a mistrial."

Posted by exJAG 2007-02-08 16:15|| 2007-02-08 16:15|| Front Page Top

#17 The Army should just send the joker to Afganistan. This keeps the joker from playing political games or exposed him as the fraud he is.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-02-08 17:07|| 2007-02-08 17:07|| Front Page Top

#18 Ex-Jag you need to be one of the commentators for CourtTV when it's on.

Posted by Penguin 2007-02-08 21:05|| 2007-02-08 21:05|| Front Page Top

14:09 wxjames
23:51 KBK
23:38 KBK
23:12 Barbara Skolaut
23:12 sinse
23:07 sinse
23:03 sinse
22:50 Angaviling Thomoter8773
22:38 liberalhawk
22:38 Biff! Sock! Kapow!
22:37 liberalhawk
22:36 Anonymoose
22:36 Fleck Graish5949
22:32 SteveS
22:32 Mullah Lodabullah
22:31 liberalhawk
22:25 Alaska Paul
22:24 Omolurt Elmeaper6990
22:21 Broadhead6
22:19 Broadhead6
22:02 JosephMendiola
21:43 Alaska Paul
21:40 Barbara Skolaut
21:40 Alaska Paul