Report: DoD Investigating Whether Navy SEALs Strangled Green Beret To Death In Mali

Cookie_

SOF Support
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
1,198
Navy JAG Corps has neem corrupt/incompetent for a long time. Their TJAG (Obama era) got slapped (lost a star?) for trying to prevent defense attorneys from doing their jobs (Navy SEAL cases). His replacement also nailed for interfering. Was this case tried in San Diego? That seems to be the Navy JAG hub of legal criminality.

The Warhorse did a 4 part series about all the corrupt shit USMC JAG is alleged to have been doing over the past few years, which is a lot of interferring in defense cases and threatening JAG officers(prosecutor and defense) who don't follow along with what higher command wants.

wouldn't be suprised if there is a similar situafion going on in the Navy.
 

BloodStripe

Marine
SOF Support
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Messages
4,264
Location
CONUS
SSMP
Military Mentor
Looks like just a re-sentencing, not dropping the charges or a release. Still bad but not as bad as it could have been.

Can he actually get more time at a re-sentencing?
I don’t think it’s a resentencing issue. From everything I’ve read they will be doing a whole new trial as the prosecutors hid information from the defense team and jurors. The prosecutors have fucked up multiple times during this whole ordeal.
 

Devildoc

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 3, 2015
Messages
5,556
Location
Durham, NC
I had Captain's mast once (NJP), But the only time I had to deal with JAG they hassled me for buying too many sets of MARPAT Cammies right after they were released, I was buying them for guys in my reserve unit and they thought I was going to sell them on the black market or eBay or whatever. I hate JAG.
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,278
Location
The Big D
I don’t think it’s a resentencing issue. From everything I’ve read they will be doing a whole new trial as the prosecutors hid information from the defense team and jurors. The prosecutors have fucked up multiple times during this whole ordeal.

Not getting a new trial. Just a "re-sentencing hearing". Already posted in the link I had on the previous page from T&P. But you can read it in the decision here:

F. Cumulative Error Allegations of cumulative error are reviewed de novo.146 “Under the cumulative-error doctrine, ‘a number of errors, no one perhaps sufficient to merit reversal, in combination necessitate the disapproval of a finding.’”147 Assertions of error without merit are insufficient to invoke the cumulative error doctrine.148 We agree with the Government that every error alleged in this AOE (with the exception of AOE 1) has been addressed and rebutted in detail and that Appellant’s claim therefore lacks merit.149 Even assuming errors occurred, we find that they were not so severe as to “substantially sway” the findings or “materially prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights.”150 The prosecution’s sentencing case in aggravation was substantial, spanning three days and approximately 233 pages of documentary evidence, Appellant admitted guilt during his pleas, and, with the exception of the first AOE, there were no other alleged errors that denied Appellant the right to a fair trial.151

III. CONCLUSION A sentence rehearing is authorized. The sentence is SET ASIDE and the record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to an appropriate convening authority with authority to order a sentencing rehearing.
 

757

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
266
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia
Wtf is going on...

"We find no merit in these arguments and determine there was no prosecutorial misconduct. In this case, trial counsel presented aggravating evidence that did not contradict the stipulation of fact or impeach the military judge’s findings that Appellant’s chokehold caused the Victim’s death. The evidence presented by trial counsel about other mechanisms of death appropriately provided “greater context of exactly what occurred that night.”120 The aggravation evidence and trial counsel’s argument provided explanations for exactly how the chokehold brought about the Victim’s death—namely, what took place internally to the Victim’s body as a result of the chokehold. The military judge properly admitted the evidence after thorough consideration." Page 22

"
This court agrees with the Government that none of the issues raised by Appellant in his mistrial motion cast substantial doubt as to Appellant’s court-martial. The military judge was correct when he determined all of the issues were “sufficiently argued and ruled on” at trial.143 Appellant also argues that the military judge’s R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) ruling “was in error” and that his denial of the mistrial “was influenced by his then-existing erroneous view of the law.”144 We disagree and, as discussed previously in this opinion, have determined that the military judge’s ruling on the aggravating evidence under R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) was proper. Finally, we agree with the Government that even though the military judge incorrectly noted that trial defense counsel did not cross-examine Dr. Fisher, the military judge did not rely on this incorrect fact to support his denial of the mistrial. He “simply note[d]” it, along with three other facts, in relation to discussion of possible forfeiture of the alleged Brady violation.145 The military judge did not make a ruling on the sua sponte issue of forfeiture, instead emphasizing that the issues were sufficiently argued at trial, did not warrant the severe remedy of mistrial, and identified no new facts or law to merit reconsideration. Appellant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied and the military judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Appellant’s request. Once more, we note that even if we found error, the proper remedy, a sentencing rehearing, has already been ordered by this Court as a result of Appellant’s first AOE. Accordingly, were we to find error related to the military judge’s ruling on Appellant’s post-trial motion for a mistrial, the error would be moot." Pages 25-26

"
We agree with the Government that every error alleged in this AOE (with the exception of AOE 1) has been addressed and rebutted in detail and that Appellant’s claim therefore lacks merit.149 Even assuming errors occurred, we find that they were not so severe as to “substantially sway” the findings or “materially prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights.”150 The prosecution’s sentencing case in aggravation was substantial, spanning three days and approximately 233 pages of documentary evidence, Appellant admitted guilt during his pleas, and, with the exception of the first AOE, there were no other alleged errors that denied Appellant the right to a fair trial.151" Pages 26-27

*Edit too lazy to make " into ' and the bolding is my own.


-Source: ThunderHorse Article
 

ThunderHorse

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
5,278
Location
The Big D
Wtf is going on...

"We find no merit in these arguments and determine there was no prosecutorial misconduct. In this case, trial counsel presented aggravating evidence that did not contradict the stipulation of fact or impeach the military judge’s findings that Appellant’s chokehold caused the Victim’s death. The evidence presented by trial counsel about other mechanisms of death appropriately provided “greater context of exactly what occurred that night.”120 The aggravation evidence and trial counsel’s argument provided explanations for exactly how the chokehold brought about the Victim’s death—namely, what took place internally to the Victim’s body as a result of the chokehold. The military judge properly admitted the evidence after thorough consideration." Page 22

"
This court agrees with the Government that none of the issues raised by Appellant in his mistrial motion cast substantial doubt as to Appellant’s court-martial. The military judge was correct when he determined all of the issues were “sufficiently argued and ruled on” at trial.143 Appellant also argues that the military judge’s R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) ruling “was in error” and that his denial of the mistrial “was influenced by his then-existing erroneous view of the law.”144 We disagree and, as discussed previously in this opinion, have determined that the military judge’s ruling on the aggravating evidence under R.C.M. 1001(b)(4) was proper. Finally, we agree with the Government that even though the military judge incorrectly noted that trial defense counsel did not cross-examine Dr. Fisher, the military judge did not rely on this incorrect fact to support his denial of the mistrial. He “simply note[d]” it, along with three other facts, in relation to discussion of possible forfeiture of the alleged Brady violation.145 The military judge did not make a ruling on the sua sponte issue of forfeiture, instead emphasizing that the issues were sufficiently argued at trial, did not warrant the severe remedy of mistrial, and identified no new facts or law to merit reconsideration. Appellant’s motion for a mistrial was properly denied and the military judge did not abuse his discretion by denying Appellant’s request. Once more, we note that even if we found error, the proper remedy, a sentencing rehearing, has already been ordered by this Court as a result of Appellant’s first AOE. Accordingly, were we to find error related to the military judge’s ruling on Appellant’s post-trial motion for a mistrial, the error would be moot." Pages 25-26

"
We agree with the Government that every error alleged in this AOE (with the exception of AOE 1) has been addressed and rebutted in detail and that Appellant’s claim therefore lacks merit.149 Even assuming errors occurred, we find that they were not so severe as to “substantially sway” the findings or “materially prejudice Appellant’s substantial rights.”150 The prosecution’s sentencing case in aggravation was substantial, spanning three days and approximately 233 pages of documentary evidence, Appellant admitted guilt during his pleas, and, with the exception of the first AOE, there were no other alleged errors that denied Appellant the right to a fair trial.151" Pages 26-27

*Edit too lazy to make " into ' and the bolding is my own.


-Source: ThunderHorse Article
Simply that the military court of appeals only found that 1 error occurred and any additional error that occurred was not material to the verdict. The defense in their appeal did a kitchen sink attempt. Pretty standard practice of lawyers, especially in civil litigation.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,917
Location
San Antonio Texas
Simply that the military court of appeals only found that 1 error occurred and any additional error that occurred was not material to the verdict. The defense in their appeal did a kitchen sink attempt. Pretty standard practice of lawyers, especially in civil litigation.
He limited the appeal process by pleading guilty. The sentencing phase is what the trial would have been.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,917
Location
San Antonio Texas
I guess that's where I've been confounded by this since it came out. How do you have grounds for an appeal when you plead out. Need the JAG @Archangel27 to chime in.
His JAG is saying the Judge may have imposed a lighter sentence had he known the witness' plea deal involved a reduced sentence. They are challenging the credibility of the witness, and trying for a shorter sentence.
 
Top