Comments on: SEALs case development

By: Charles Gittins

Charles Gittins — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:14:36 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:58:00 +0000

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

By: Southern Defense Counsel

Southern Defense Counsel — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:45:48 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:05:59 +0000

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.

By: Phil Cave

Phil Cave — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:54:42 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:07:08 +0000

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…

By: Some Army Guy

Some Army Guy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:01:24 +0000

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.