Here is a link to a local article from Ft. Hood that reports Maj. Hasan’s counsel John Galligan is alleging, I think, that any pre-trial confinement would be an Art. 13 violation. Through no fault of Mr. Galligan the story doesn’t lay out his argument, though it reports Mr. Galligan has laid out his position in a letter to the chief judge at Ft. Hood. Because the case hasn’t been referred, I don’t see the chief judge doing much about said letter. I would guess a Circuit Chief Judge wouldn’t want to be seen as potentially influencing the upcoming Art. 32 or any future Art. 13 motion.

6 Responses to “Maj Hasan’s Lawyer Alleging PTC is an Art 13 Violation”

  1. Anonymous says:

    If he gets day-for-day credit for this alleged Article 13-violating pre-trial confinement, does that mean he will be executed in 8 years rather than 10 years? Is that how they can apply such credit?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Is this what he is spending his energy on? An alleged mass murderer getting PTC?

    I understand that the conditions at Bell County are pretty crappy for any accused, but he is in the infirmary so it is not like he’s even getting the same level of crappy conditions any other PTC at Hood would get.

    I understand eventually raising the issue perhaps, but it just seems like his focus should be solely on gathering and collating E&M material

  3. Phil Cave says:

    Anon 1001.
    In a death penalty case anything and everything is potentially mitigation, no matter how odd it may seem. Therefore, while I agree it seems pretty minor compared to other cases we deal with, Mr. Galligan is doing the right thing here, IMHO, by making an issue. One of the lessons of DP litigation is that everything possible must be raised.
    If there is an Art. 13 issue, just because he’s a “mass murderer” doesn’t make it right on the part of the government to not follow the rules. Such a course of conduct leads us to where we are in many issues, it’s a slippery slope.
    I know the slippery slope argument isn’t always well received, but then those who criticize it aren’t at the bottom of the slope.
    It also seems to me that telling a group of members how “badly” the person will be treated if given LWOP may cause one to vote for LWOP. To put some hyperbole into it. What would you prefer, a quick death, or the idea that he’ll be in a tiny cell hung by his thumbs daily as part of a living hell for the rest of his life.
    Cheers.

  4. Ama Goste says:

    10 years is a bit of an understatement. No military death row inmate has been executed in nearly 50 years, and the closest to execution right now committed his crimes 20+ years ago.

  5. Cloudesley Shovell says:

    Rule 4: Make your opponent live up to his own book of rules.

    I, personally, think it is shameful that the military farms out critical aspects of the military justice system to county jails. I recall, in the not very distant past, when every base (Navy base anyway), had a brig and a restricted barracks.

    Often the brig was right near the center of the base, where everyone could see it. Those on restriction were normally singled out with with unique uniform items (such as headgear) identifying that person to everyone at large as someone on restriction.

    Nowadays it seems to me that brigs and PTC facilities are hidden away where nobody can see them, and often dispensed with entirely. Does it work? Changing times with an all-volunteer force? Certainly changing, but I’m not sure it’s for the better.

  6. JimmyMac says:

    Mr. Shovell,
    Apparently you have not had your glass of the Navy’s “Transformation” beverage of the day – it’s all about the business model and those brigs and restricted barracks are just not “cost effective”. So, we “outsource” them. What’s that you say? A “leadership tool”? No, we outsourced “leadership” long ago.