Prosecuting Hasan likely to be a drawn-out affair, military legal experts say

[Johnny Bravo]

By ANTHONY SPANGLER

aspangler@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH — Complicated by a federal investigation into possible terrorist ties and the prospect of mental issues, the prosecution of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will likely be a lengthy and intricate process, military legal experts say.

Hasan has been identified by military officials as the lone suspect in the Fort Hood shootings last week that left 13 dead and more than 30 wounded — the deadliest mass shooting at a U.S. military installation.

A former Army staff judge advocate and military law expert at Texas Tech University suggests that it could take about two years to go to the military equivalent of a trial, depending on the defendant’s health. And the outcome of the case would likely end up mired in complex appeals.

"We never had a case quite like this before . . . because of pretrial publicity, it will create a lot of complications," said Richard Rosen, vice chairman of the university’s law school and former military justice attorney at Fort Hood.

Many factors will make the legal process challenging for prosecutors and defense attorneys: the number of witnesses, whether the actions were related to terrorism, mental capacity and the prospect of the death penalty. What may be the most difficult decision, military legal experts say, is whether the case will be tried at Fort Hood.

The convening authority in the case, which will be one of Hasan’s commanders, could request a change of venue.

Still, Rosen said, Hasan could get a fair trial.

"There could be a lot of prejudice there and, because of the tremendous pretrial publicity, there could be pressure to move the case elsewhere," he said. "But experience has been that military jurors are an independent bunch. The military jurists are smart people. The officers will all be college-educated and people with advanced degrees."

Venue questions

Federal officials have indicated that the case against Hasan would be handled by military justice because the suspect is a service member, the victims are Defense Department employees and the incident occurred at a military installation. It also signals that federal officials will not pursue a terrorism angle, but military legal experts say federal prosecutors could revisit terrorism-related crimes separately.

But if Hasan faces military death-penalty charges, prosecutors will be required to prove premeditation.

Fort Worth attorney Jim Lane, who made headlines three decades ago defending U.S. soldiers involved in the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, said many questions swirling in the media about the suspect’s motive may not be answered until the trial.

"It’s not a question of what happened, but the question is why it happened," he said. "It will be a most interesting and provocative defense."

Hasan’s attorney, John Galligan, did not return phone or e-mail messages Tuesday which in part asked whether Hasan has been read his rights or whether he has spoken with investigators. Galligan, a retired colonel hired Monday by Hasan’s family, has asked that federal investigators not interview Hasan because it was unclear whether he had been cleared medically to talk, according to The Associated Press.

[Hazcat]

And the media circus is in town and setting up their tents!

[tombogan03884]

 What a load of crap. The case is open and shut, A whole room full of people saw him, including 2 police officers who marked him for identification with bullet holes, and removed from his hand a pistol that not only bears his finger prints but also matches the bullets recovered from the scene. Motive and mental state are irrelevancies that in hundreds of cases over the centuries have never been established, and in fact have absolutely no bearing on the fact that he is a mass murderer.
Premeditation ? He cleaned out his apartment the day before and brought 2 guns and ammunition to a "gun free zone" how much more pre planning do they need ?
As to whether he was influenced by others, that is a secondary question which should, but will not, be the subject of a RICO investigation into the mosques and other Muslim groups he was involved with.
A fair trial is one thing, but it is not very likely that he is going to have gall enough to say, "nope, wasn't me, I was in at my mothers house that day."

[fightingquaker13]

Amen Tom. But the thing is, as long as he stays in custody, they can hang him tommorow or ten years from now. Who cares? The concern is that they dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s so the bastard won't wiggle free on a technicality. To quote a New Englander "The wheels of God grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine". We'll get him, just let him stew.
FQ3

[shooter32]

Amen Tom. But the thing is, as long as he stays in custody, they can hang him tommorow or ten years from now. Who cares? The concern is that they dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s so the bastard won't wiggle free on a technicality. To quote a New Englander "The wheels of God grind exceeding slow, but they grind exceeding fine". We'll get him, just let him stew.
FQ3

The tax payers do!!!

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

The tax payers do!!!

Thats the problem with the death penalty, its expensive. It shouldn't be, but it is. I'm all in favor of one mandatory appeal to make sure the trial was on the level, and then the rope. However that ain't the way things seem to work.
FQ13

[racassady]

Maybe I am a little slow, but wouldn't this fit under the definition of treason?

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Seems to me that the evidence all fits. Where am I wrong?

Rick
West Lafayette, Indiana

[fightingquaker13]

Welcome Rick! (think of us like an AA meeting, only in reverse.) The thing about treason is that its a very dangerous word. You start throwing it around and before you know it,  half this board will be hanged, Tom first. Why bring that kind of heat when you can kill the guy just as dead with multiple first degree murder charges? At least that seems to be the reasoning of prosecutors. If you look back historically, there have been damned few treason charges, even during the Civil War and the Red Scares. Charging someone with a capital crime for disloyalty to the state seems to scare the crap out of everyone, as it should. Why bother, when murder or espionage and the like are on the table? Just my speculation.
FQ13

[racassady]

Welcome Rick! (think of us like an AA meeting, only in reverse.) The thing about treason is that its a very dangerous word. You start throwing it around and before you know it,  half this board will be hanged, Tom first. Why bring that kind of heat when you can kill the guy just as dead with multiple first degree murder charges? At least that seems to be the reasoning of prosecutors. If you look back historically, there have been damned few treason charges, even during the Civil War and the Red Scares. Charging someone with a capital crime for disloyalty to the state seems to scare the crap out of everyone, as it should. Why bother, when murder or espionage and the like are on the table? Just my speculation.
FQ13

Yes, you are probably right, considering Homeland Security already thinks gun owners are one step away from joining right-wing terrorist camps.

Rick
West Lafayette, Indiana

[tombogan03884]

From RACassidy's post;
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
(welcome to the forum     )
Yes, shooting 43 unarmed soldiers seems to fill that requirement pretty well, not to mention falling under the heading of a "war crime".

FQ, on this you are again falling into the traps set by your socialist work environment.
First off I would have to say that any one with an IQ above 6 should be able to see that the disregarded warnings of the "Red scares" have pretty much come to pass or been put in motion.
Secondly, your excuse for not raising the TREASON Issue is flat out ignorant. Exterminating the elitist scum who are siezing power is NOT the same as waging war to OVERTURN the Constitution, in fact, not doing so is more in keeping with the "aid and comfort" clause, I never have and never will advocate, or condone violence against ANYONE who is actually trying to UPHOLD the Constitution, I would in fact offer my help.
The reason politicians are afraid to charge any one with treason is because it hits to close to home for them.
A wise man once said "Treason never prospers, for if it DOES prosper, none dare call it treason."