WCCO reports here that the military judge in the capital court-martial of Seregant Joseph Bozicevich has granted a defense request to continue the case from June until February 2011.  The case is being tried at Fort Stewart.  SGT Bozicevich is charged with killing two other U.S. soldiers in Iraq, including his squad leader.

12 Responses to “Military judge delays capital court-martial until February 2011”

  1. anonymous says:

    Justice delayed is Justice delayed. Is this delay regarding some cottage industry mitigation crap?

  2. Cheap Seats says:

    My guess is that if they wanted to stick a needle in your arm and kill you that you’d want all the delay and mitigation you could get. Right?

  3. anonymous says:

    That depends on what I had done to deserve a captal court-martial. If I were innocent, I would not want any delay at all, so I could get acquitted faster. If I had committed the capital crimes however, I would want all the delay I could get.

  4. John Harwood says:

    @Anon1604, spoken like someone who’s never spent a minute at the defense table.

  5. Jason Grover says:

    It strikes me as difficult to make an informed decision without knowing all the facts. But that is a very lawyer-type thing to say. How about this, shouldn’t we at least know how long it has been pending since the crime, preferral, 32, referral, and granting of significant experts, before we can make an educated call on the reasonableness of the delay? It is a capital case for goodness sake. I am sure others will correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t Walker at 60 MJ 728 (or close, this is from memory and I am tired) (NMCCA 2008) the most recent published military death penalty decision? And in Walker, the Court set aside portions of the findings because the MJ abused his discretion in granting a defense continuance request. For or against the death penalty, I would think that most reasonable people could agree it is important to do these cases right. And giving a long continuance now minimizes the likelihood of the defense coming back every month for another one and probably makes it harder for either side to justify future continuances. I have no idea who the MJ is, but I applaud his or her good sense and not trying to rush.

  6. michael k says:

    If I was innocent and facing the death penalty, I think it would be really nifty to make sure that my defense attorney had everything he/she needed to handle my case.

    The ‘hurry up so I can get acquitted faster’ method assumes that an innocent man walks into Court with a giant “I’M INNOCENT” sign on his shirt that the panel can use to quickly acquit. In my TDS days, the military judge would never let my clients wear that sign to trial.

  7. Anonymous says:

    So it’s all about guilt or innocence? How about being guilty but not wanting the death penalty?
    You might want things to go on for awhile.

    How about being innocent (whether factually or because of insanity at the time of the offense) and knowing that your defense counsel will need a large amount of time to prepare?

    You might also be just fine with a lengthy delay.

    At the end of the day, none of us know the specifics to judge the delay one way or another, and yet, you feel free to write not one but two mocking sarcastic posts about the delay.

    Clearly, you believe mitigation testimony is somehow an invalid “cottage industry.” I know one or two government counsel who’ve expressed that view, which was not particularly persuasive…but am open to your thoughts as to why mitigation experts aren’t legitimate.

  8. LTC Lipschitz says:

    Query: Is the death penalty more or less legitimate than it was, say, fifty years ago? Let’s start with that question and build from there…shall we?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Well, one would assume it is more legitimate if you are discussing the protections then vs. now.

    We certainly didn’t care much about mitigation experts, we didn’t have any more stringent requirement for investigation than in a garden variety larceny, we didn’t have Ring or Apprendi, we didn’t have the overall developed case-law, and you could get the DP for rape as the last Soldier executed was in fact executed not for murder but for rape.

    On the other hand, habeus is much more restrictive now than then.

    But from my pov, I find that total analysis not particularly helpful. The more appropriate starting point is, is the DP done right now. That it is better is nice, but ultimately irrelevant if the answer to that question is, no, it is not done right.

  10. Article 16 says:

    IAC alert.

  11. LTC Lipschitz says:

    Why is it better now? Did we execute any factually innocent people back then?

  12. Anonymous says:

    I assume we did, and more often.