As we note below, SPC Marc A. Hall’s counsel have filed action in U.S. district court seeking an order preventing the Army from sending him to Kuwait–or Iraq, as the memorandum in support of TRO alleges–to be tried by court-martial.  The case is Hall v. McHugh, 4:10-cv-00030-WTM-GRS, which is pending in the Southern District of Georgia.  We’ve posted Hall’s memorandum in support of his motion for a TRO here.

3 Responses to “Memorandum in support of TRO in Hall v. McHugh”

  1. No Man says:

    Am I reading that wrong or is the defendnat asserting a Sixth A. right to jury trial in a FN and right to a public trial? Down right Judge Crawford-esque. Amazingly not a single cite to the Watada case.

  2. John O'Connor says:

    I have lots of random thoughts about this:

    1. I could see a claim here if the military inexplicably set venue at a distant place such that you couldn’t afford to bring your civilian counsel there.

    2. The fact that the non-skulkers in Hall’s unit are already over there, in my mind, fatally undermines any claim by Hall that he has an entitlement tio be tried where his unit isn’t.

    3. Even if Hall had a claim, I think under Councilman that it remains a claim to be vindicated in the military courts.

    4. It doesn’t really help Hall’s case that he doesn’t have civilian counsel for his court-martial, and the habeas petition concedes that he might not get civilian counsel even if the case remained in the U.S.

    5. I don’t see a good showing of what witnesses in the U.S. are needed and couldn’t be made available. I imagine this issue could be resolved through videoconference in large part.

    6. Judges are not given the task of running the Army.

  3. Peter E. Brownback III says:

    Ignoring the lack of knowledge about military law shown by the comment about the relationship between a convening authority and a military judge in a court-martial

    (Petitioner has no other recourse but this Court. His only other avenue for redress would be pretrial motions filed with the military judge presiding over his court-martial. However, there is no military judge because the convening authority who would summon the judge does not yet have jurisdiction over petitioner, who remains in the United States. See pp. 7-8.),

    I still do not understand the status of the case. None of the matters in the post actually state whether or not Hall’s case has been referred to a court-martial.

    Does anyone know if the case has been referred?