Breaking: Mistrial Declared in Watada Case!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07457586.htm ^

[Jet Jaguar]

I agree.

[Howlin]

His daddy is a CO, too.

[Jet Jaguar]

Nod. I have seen some of his interviews.

[Kaslin]

Judge Nap on Fox said the guy convinced the judge today that he didn't understand the agreement they had signed!

I could understand it if he were a lowly Private, but not a Lieutenant

[Diana in Wisconsin]

"[Watada] does not dispute the facts, but said it was not an admission of guilt."

Typical lib. Depends upon what "is" is.

Chalk another one up to the Clinton Legacy! *SPIT*

[Howlin]

Thanks for confirming my non-military thoughts. :-)

[Diana in Wisconsin]

I've said these exact words, as have millions of others before and after me. 'Tain't hard to understand. Hay-uck! If a dumb Hayseed like me can understand it, what's this fellow's confusion? *Rolleyes*

The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm

[BenLurkin]

Yes, I am the one missing it.

I am told that a defendant cannot pleased guilty in the military court and if the stipulation (factual or not) has the effect of being a confession the court has to throw it out and make the prosecution prove its case.

It seems the prosecutors should have known better.

[Stoat]

Washington State Ping

[PISANO]

Civilian court room antics have now permeated our military courts?

Disgraceful!!

[facedown]

Are you sure the judge's name isn't Richard?

[Kaslin]

Like I told Howlin I could understand if the were a lowly Private that he didn't know what it meant, but lot as a Lieutenant. I might have been born yesterday, but I was not born stupid

[Shimmer128]

My son used to say "i might have been born at night, but it wasn't last night"

[RobRoy]

>>I think this guy joined up to do just what he's doing.<<

I agree. And our ranks are growing.

[Kaslin]

You remember the Lieutenant from the Beetle Bailey cartoon? That is who he reminds me of. He wasn't very bright either

[Sword_Svalbardt]

He's an example to his men! Charge him with sedition, and bury his sorry butt!

[dfwgator]

All that judge did today is to weaken a country. Sweet dreams, son.

[SevenofNine]

Must trained by Frisco judical system that sound like it

[HardStarboard]

>>>I think this guy joined up to do just what he's doing.<<<

I think I read that his parents are prominent lefties.... (Hawaii? maybe).

He certainly is articulate (and clean too) - far more so than the average 20something - particularly about the war. I think he has been coached and drilled in anti-Iraq-war propaganda.

Anyone have the skinny on his background and political experience?

[Captain Rhino]

Actually, it is just backward. The defense, not the prosecution, is the one playing games here. The prosecution thought it had a fairly easy case since the accused had admitted the elements of the offense in the pretrial statement of facts.

However, a defendant cannot stipulate (agree to) facts in a pretrial agreement that essentially meet all the elements required for conviction for the offense as specified in the Manual for Courts Martial and then assert he is not guilty in open court.

Hearing procedures are very carefully laid down to protect the accused from inadvertently confessing to an offense he or she doesn't really believe they committed. The procedures require the hearing officer or judge (depending on the level of the courts martial) to ensure the accused really understands and agrees to their sworn statements whether orally or, as in this case, in a written statement of facts. If there is any doubt whatsoever that the accused doesnot completely agree with the facts as stated, the hearing officer or judge must order a full trail so that the facts can be determined in a court of law under the established rules of evidence.

The mistrial issue is being created by the fact that the jury has already heard the pretrial statement readout in court so it (the jury) is tainted by evidence that may now have to be ruled as inadmissible. Consequently, the "unring the bell" comment by the judge.

IMO, the defense, perhaps realizing the flawed nature of the pretrial statement but unable to withdraw it, deliberately allowed it to be read so that jury would be tainted and then raised the "unlawful war" objection when the judge began his examination of the pretrial agreement in hope of a mistrial. The anti-war activists on the defense team, knowing that Watada will probably be convicted on the evidence, are more interested in dragging out the proceedings for their propaganda value.

If a mistrial is declared, a new set of dispositions will need to be taken. You can bet the defense will not be allowing the good lieutenant to admit to anything when he gives his statement again.