The No Man posted below about the schedule for SO2 McCabe’s court-martial next week.    The USNAVYSEALS.COM blog reports here that a rally is scheduled outside the main gate at MacDill Air Force Base on Sunday.  The blog has also posted a schedule of rallies in SO2 McCabe’s on Monday here.

And here’s a report of an interview with SO2 McCabe’s counsel, Neal Puckett.

9 Responses to “Rallies planned to protest SO2 McCabe prosecution”

  1. Biff says:

    Anybody else going to the rallies?

  2. Anonymous says:

    This has to be an awkward situation for the prosecution (and I’m one who think they they have handled charging process pretty well); if they get a conviction now all heck is going to break loose. While I normally hate counsel trying cases in the press, Mr. Puckett may be right.

  3. Fix the System says:

    Agreed, the fact that the first two were found not guilty and if you find the third one guilty this would open up scrutiny to the UCMJ. Cases were the facts are identical w/ multiple accused should be tried together, not seperate trials.

  4. anonymous says:

    Can the prosecution ethically go forward. It appears not.

  5. Ama Goste says:

    Different facts + different charges = no ethical dilemma for prosecutors

  6. ??? says:

    Ama Goste, what “facts” are different? Let’s by-pass the charges (since that is subjective) and start with objective facts – what is different?

  7. Dwight Sullivan says:

    On what basis would it be “unethical” for the prosecution to go forward? Are we talking rules of professional conduct or are we talking general morality?

    If the latter, note that it would be possible for the finder of fact to conclude that SO2 McCabe did hit Abed but still find the accuseds not guilty of the offenses they faced. In neither of the other cases would it have been sufficient to prove the accused’s guilty to prove merely that the accused was present and that SO2 McCabe struck Abed.

    And, as a general legal matter, issue preclusion doesn’t arise due to the outcome of a case with a different party.

    What if we’re talking rules of professional conduct type ethics? As one of our readers (thanks, Jimmy Mac!) pointed out, under ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8, “The prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” Certainly the charges against SO2 McCabe are supported by probable cause. I have no opinion as to whether SO2 McCabe is guilty. But a Navy petty officer master-at-arms has apparently testified that he saw SO2 McCabe hit Abed in the stomach and the petty officer apparently testified to that under oath. That may or may not rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But it is certainly probably cause.

    That said, Model Rule 3.8 doesn’t apply to the military, since military prosecutors don’t exercise prosecutorial discretion. Navy Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 provides, “A trial counsel ahsll: (1) recommend to the convening authority that any charge or specification not warranted by the evidence be withdrawn.”

    So, again, on what ground does it appear that the prosecution cannot ethically go forward?

  8. Dwight Sullivan says:

    p.s. — hypothesize that SO1 Huertas and SO2 Keefe had been found guilty. Would you argue that SO2 McCabe’s defense counsel couldn’t ethically have entered a plea of not guilty? If not, what’s the difference between that situation and this?

  9. Anonymous says:

    This is beyond ridiculous. Anyone subject to the UCMJ who publicly questions the judgment of a superior officer ought to be court-martialed.