Speaking of blogging about military matters, a friend o’ CAAFlog has sent us this link to a CNN report that John Galligan, MAJ Hasan’s civilian defense counsel, has set up a blog about the case here.  According to the CNN report, Mr. Galligan states that when he received discovery, “the military judge issued a gag order forbidding [him] from inadvertently or purposefully ‘divulging, publishing or revealing, either by word or conduct,’ information from the evidence.”  Mr. Galligan protests that there is “a double set of standards” because the trial counsel aren’t subject to a gag order.

20 Responses to “MAJ Hasan’s civilian defense counsel establishes blog”

  1. Anonymous says:

    My momma said if you have nothing good to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.

    Therefore, I have no comment on the blogging of Mr. Galligan.

  2. Anon says:

    The reason it doesn’t apply to the prosecution is that they’re not holding a press conference or giving an interview every five minutes.

  3. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    My good sir:

    I do believe that the CNN report you relied upon for your quotes above inadvertently misquoted Mr. Galligan. He says nothing about a military judge issuing a gag order on his blog. There is, in fact, no military judge assigned to this case because the case is not there yet–the Art. 32 hearing is still months away. Mr. Galligan states in his blog that the SpCMCA (Col. Lamb) issued the gag order.

    Finally, regarding my previous comments on the slow pace of proceedings, if the Army is only getting around to responding to disclosure and discovery requests at the end of February, no wonder the Art. 32 has been delayed.

    Yrs humbly,

  4. Rip Van Winkle says:

    Excuse me, but during my nap, did they conclude MAJ Hasan’s Article 32, Investigation, refer the case to trial and arraign him?

    If not, who the hell cares what some interloping Military Judge says? Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991), governs his First Amendment rights, coupled with whatever his Bar rules are.

    Thou does’t protest too much, good Sir Galligan!

  5. Anonymous says:

    A question and a point,

    1. Does a SCMCA have the authority to issue a gag order on a CDC?

    2. Going back to your argument about time frames. The defense wants that mitigation expert now. Not just for trial but also for the 32. It’s been denied by the government, not because the requestd expert isn’t necessary and apparently not because the requested expert isn’t qualified, but for some odd reason because the requested expert also happens to be an attorney (which is not uncommon for DP mitigation experts).

    I guess that shows that as often as not, it is the government that is responsible for a slower-paced DP trial. Still, were I on the case, I would need months and months to properly prepare for an Article 32 hearing. I would think anyone would.

  6. Anon says:

    Along Anon 1518’s point, the SJA may want to read Loving’s cert petition to SCOTUS [somewhere posted on CAAFlog recently] about the many issues that not having a mitigation specialist creates.

    Why create an issue, which is easily preventable, but potentially problematic, if you’re trying to execute the guy??

  7. John O'Connor says:

    Momma always told me not to get a tattoo of Roy Orbison. But what Momma don’t know . . . .”

  8. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Anon at 318pm–

    Regarding your first point, I would assume Col Lamb issued his order under RCM 405(g)(6).

    Regarding your second point, whatever my normative opinions regarding the way things ought to be, I think it was a mistake to deny the mitigation expert. If the case is referred capital, the defense is going to get one anyway. One could argue a mitigation expert, who would assist in the penalty phase, is irrelevant until at least referral of charges, and therefore not necessary to prepare for the Article 32 hearing. However, if the case is going to be referred capital, might as well let the defense get started now; otherwise you’re only delaying things down the line.

  9. Bridget says:

    Mr. Galligan thought it was unusual to have a sitting MJ as a 32 officer, but it is my sense that it is not really uncommon to have an MJ is appointed to a 32 in a complex case or one with a great deal of public interest. It would seem a pretty wise thing for the Army to do in a CP case.

  10. Anonymous says:

    405 references MRE 505 and 506. Guess I would need to see what it is that is being “silenced” and what the order prohibits him exactly from disclosing.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I don’t think it’s unusual to appoint a sitting MJ as the I.O. in a probable capital case. But, being an I.O. is just that – s/he is not acting as a MJ and has no inherent MJ power or authority over a CDC until the hearing commences. That’s pretty basic imho.

  12. Omar says:

    If the SJA/Chief of Justice is having to read up on the requirements of Kreutzer and Loving on giving the Defense a mitigation specialist, its going to be a long, long, long, ride.

  13. Publius says:

    Sir Cloudesley is of course correct. Appointing the mitigation specialist now will speed things up. Despite the number of specs, there is no reason the Article 32 investigation is being delayed so long. This is an Article 32 investigation, not a trial. If they don’t appoint the mitigation specialist now, they won’t be trying this case for another two years. That said, I would not delay the completion of the Article 32 until the mitigation specialist completes the report.

  14. John O'Connor says:

    I have seen MJs appointed as Article 32 IOs for high profile cases. That said, I don’t much like the practice because of “separation of powers” issues (I know it’s not, strictly speaking separation of powers because it’s all Executive branch people, but you get the point).

    I just don’t think MJs should be available at the call of a CA to perform duties that are nonjudicial but in the military justice system. I would keep them separate.

  15. Jason Grover says:

    By the way, I am pleased to see that the aggravating factors are apparently being investigated at the 32. That is not clearly required under R.C.M. 1004 and it is the better practice. I believe that was done in Martinez and it may be the practice now in the Army.

  16. Anonymous says:


    Why don’t you like MJs as IOs?

    I can’t understand the “separation of powers” comment, given CAAF’s views that Article 32s are “judicial proceedings” and that IOs are “judicial persons” subject to the ABA’s standards for trial judges (See e.g. Holt, 52 M.J. 173, 183 and Collins, 6 M.J. 256,258-9).

    As to being “at the call of a CA”, my understanding is that a CA must request an MJ to be made available for appointment as an IO. I don’t think any CA would presume the authority otherwise to appoint an MJ.

  17. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    How do you know they’ll be investigated at the Art. 32?

  18. John O'Connor says:

    Anon 1736:

    I think appearances are better if MJs deal with cases that are referred to court-martial and are removed from any role in deciding what gets referred to a court-martial.

    I understand that a CA has to “ask” for an MJ, and theoretically could be turned down. But when they ask and are not turned down, it creates something of an appearance that the juidciary is providing assistance to the CA on whether a case ought to go to court-martial, part of the “team.” I think it’s clearner to rigorously separate MJs from CAs.

  19. Jason Grover says:

    No Man,
    I saw it referenced on the defense counsel’s blog.

  20. Mike "No Man" Navarre says:

    Don’t believe everything you read on blogs, particularly military justice ones