Posted on 07/25/2006 6:22:50 AM PDT by radar101
Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman charged in the April killing of an Iraqi man are refusing to testify against one another, attorneys for one of the men said Monday.
Jane Siegel, who represents Pfc. John Jodka III, said the military was increasingly frustrated that none would agree to testify for the prosecution.
"The government is doing its damned best to try and provoke one of these Marines to testify against the others in accordance with its theory of the case," Siegel said. "None of these men are going to do that."
Siegel's comments were made after the Marine Corps sent the attorneys a notice Friday afternoon saying that it was ready to proceed with hearings Aug. 1 to determine if the premeditated murder, conspiracy, kidnapping and related offenses will stand.
In the notice, the Marine Corps said that it intended to call each man as a witness to testify against his squad mates in the alleged premeditated kidnapping and murder of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad on April 26 in Hamdania, Iraq.
Seigel's co-counsel, Joseph Casas, said the notification of the government's intention is part of its legal strategy. Once Jodka or the other men invoke the military equivalent of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, that opens the door for prosecutors to use hearsay statements each may have made.
"I'm not very surprised by that maneuver," said Casas, who spent time as a military prosecutor while in the Navy.
Marine Corps officials had no immediate response to the attorneys' comments.
The notice was sent in part to preserve the government's requirement to move the case along its judicial process within 120 days of the men's first being incarcerated, which was May 10, in Fallujah, Iraq. The men were transferred to Camp Pendleton later that month and have been in the base brig since May 24.
Defense attorneys are asking the military to postpone the investigative hearings until mid-September. That request was filed Monday, and the attorneys said they expect it will be granted.
The defense lawyers also complain that the Marine Corps continues to decline requests for evidence they say they need to prepare for the hearings and any subsequent courts-martial.
Casas said the denials cite the same reason ---- the requests are premature because the case has not been bound over for trial.
On Monday, Casas said the Marine Corps denied his request to bring in a crime scene reconstructionist.
Last week, the Marine Corps said that it would be premature to have an independent investigator appointed for the defense and to allow that investigator to travel to Iraq to see the site where the incident occurred.
Those denials are particularly frustrating, Casas said, because "we've got one of the largest and most serious cases that the Marine Corps has seen since Vietnam."
The military also has identified additional prosecutors assigned to the case as Lt. Col. John Baker, listed as senior trial counsel, along with Majs. Don Plowman and Daren Erickson and Capt. Nick Gannon. The Marine Corps previously named Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan and Capt. Timothy Garrison as prosecutors assigned to the case.
-- Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
I wonder if it ever occurs to these lawyers that the troopers are innocent?
Ping.
Marines...not troopers
Good. **** the prosecutors.
Looks like there are no Chandler Seagraves in this group, which is a good thing as Seagraves is a worthless POS.
Now THAT ought to be velly interesting!!!
There appears to be a feeding frenzy (shamefully so, I might add) by The Corps to push this thru and find them all guilty so as to be able to show the world that we are different and will not countenance such actions by our military--even if the facts happen to get in the way.
The Marine Corps takes care of it's own.
Remember that phrase?
Looks like those Marines are taking care of their own!!
And I am damn proud to hear it!!
If someone is more familiar with the UCMJ than I, please correct me. As I understand it, there's a separate offense of not reporting a criminal act that an individual observes. This differs from civilian law where there's no such reporting obligation. Assuming that obligation exists and further assuming one or more of the Marines allegedly saw something he should have reported and did not, then each would have a solid self incrimination claim in refusing to testify about what he allegedly saw the others do, since such testimony could potentially incriminate him because he originally didn't report what he saw.
And... as a civilian, I'm a bit concerned about the attitudes expresed so far in this post, i.e. the most important detail here seems to be whether a Marine will "rat on" a fellow Marine and not on whether the truth and the whole truth gets vetted.
If (and let's emphasize that "IF" these soldiers are guilty of what's been charged, they should hang, period. Any "soldier" who would cover for anyone he knows to be guilty of such a crime should do worse than hang and doesn't deserve to wear the uniform.
Now having said that, of course we just want to know the truth and we only want to prosecute someone if they are in fact guilty. I do hope the politics and the publicity do not cause anyone to be prosecuted beyond their actual guilt in the matter and if we have a case here of Marines standing up for the truth against the wishes of some overzealous prosecutor's then more honor to them for holding their line.
But so far in this thread, all I see is concern about maintaining the military version of that thin blue line cops like to think exists.
Question for some Marine out there, under the UCMJ do you retain the right of fifth amendment? PS I do not know what happened nor does the media, but these Marines sound like good guys to me. We will see.
Anyone see the "Rules of Engagement," an embassy rescue operation? Similar, but not exactly the same aspects in this case.
Sounds like 8 guys don't agree to the invetigators theory
and without an autopsy;
these Marines & Corpsman will be acquitted.
Please correct if I am wrong;
but if memory serves, not one U.S. military personnel has been convicted of any Iraq/Afghanistan war crimes to date!
Semper Fi,
Kelly
There should be no JAG or investigator allowed near a combat investigation or trial who does not have hard combat experience as a grunt. Let these legal poltroons walk outside the wire in Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad and other very dangerous places before they are allowed to scutinize any actions by any combatant.
I would venture to say that some of the soldiers were offered some real good sweetheart deals to implicate the others.Having them all refuse to testify against one another,says something about the men.It seems to me like they are sticking together as any good unit would.They were probably a good squad to be in if one were in the same unit in combat.But if they are guilty,the rules apply.I am hoping they are not.
I am pleased too, even regardless of their guilt, frankly. Feeding frenzies need to be stopped at the git-go, not fed and pandered to. God bless our Marines. And,what a surprise -- there are innocent victims in a WAR?
Click on the LINK:
http://www.patdollard.com/Teasers.html
There are three videos.
Watch them, then tell me if you would find any of these guys "Guilty".
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.