The planned deposition of the purported victim of the alleged assault in the Navy SEALs cases has been scrapped, according to this blog post  linking to this post from SO2 McCabe’s law firm, Puckett & Faraj, PC. 

The Puckett & Faraj post states:  “Major General Cleveland has canceled the government trip to Iraq to depose the detainee.   This leaves the SO2 McCabe defense and government teams without the Iraqi detainee’s presence or sworn statements as evidence in the case.”

7 Responses to “SEALs case development”

  1. Some Army Guy says:

    While I’m a bit of a government hack, I don’t see how a judge could let this go forward without the defense having any access to the victim.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Interesting thought. Perhaps the government could argue that the absence of the victim was a result of the actions of the SEALs because they detained him, thereby preventing him from obtaining a passport to travel to the site of the trial…

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Does the prosecution need the “victim?”
    If they have one or more eyewitnesses, why does the prosecution need to produce the victim to testify? The testimony of eyewitnesses would be sufficient beyond reasonable doubt?
    If the defense wants the victim then they can ask for the deposition can they not?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Phil while I respect your opinions on this blog, and you are probably right (a conviction can be secured w/o a “victim” testifying……

    Your statement is exactly what is wrong with MilJus. All too ofter you have cases were convictions are won based off flimsy testimony from a third party.

    In a lot of these cases, as in this one, I would argue reasonable doubt that they did not do it is automatic.

    No one should be thinking based off a “witness” (who’s story may have varied several times) that the Government can breach the threshold of reasonable doubt.

  5. Southern Defense Counsel says:

    Anon 0005

    I’m not sure I’ve seen too many cases where a case was won by the government without the alleged victim testifying (except for murder charges). The absence of a complaining witness, in my experience, has led panels to frequently return findings of not guilty because the members want to know why they can’t hear from the guy who was punched, woman who was raped, etc.

    In my experience with members at Courts Martial the government is taking a substantial risk in not producing the testimony, in one form or another, of the alleged victim.

  6. Anonymous says:

    This really makes me wonder if the govt thought this all through prior to referring the case. What a mess.

  7. Charles Gittins says:

    The Military Judge moved the Keefe and Huertas trials to Iraq in order to assure that the “victim” is available to testify. He’ll be there or this judge will abate . . . I feel certain. This is a judge who has told the Government that they will comply with the 6th Amendment, or else. The judge in the McCabe trial, not so much.