7 Responses to “McCabe panel seated; 4 officers, 3 enlisted”

  1. Cap'n Crunch says:

    Playing the old “numbers” game, it will take 5 of 7 to convict. 6 is a good number for the prosecutor, 8 is a better number for the defense. But 7 I thought was generally good as a defense counsel (better than 6 and not as good as 8).

    When did they seat them Dwight and when do they start opening arguments?

    No offense to Jason, BUT… I really hope that he loses this one. Can you imagine the fallout if McCabe is convicted after the other two acquittals? And then you have certain appellate issues (I think you have a confrontation issue insofar as the bad guy detainee is not being called), which, were it me trying the case as a defense counsel, I might well ask the panel for a BCD if there was a conviction just to knock it up into the appeals court.

  2. As Mayor Bloomberg said says:

    Get a life.

  3. Rob M says:

    Didn’t he waive his confrontation right, though? The other two got a change of venue to Iraq to confront the detainee; I thought McCabe (through his lawyers) said he didn’t want the same change of venue.

  4. Cap'n Crunch says:

    Rob: I thought McCabe raised the issue, but McCabe had a different military judge who denied the motion, while the defendant’s motion was granted in the other two cases.

    Suppose McCabe is convicted, you’d think that the appellate court might try to weasel out of the issue by saying no prejudice. Could/should McCabe enter certified copies of the results of trial in the other two cases as appellate exhibits now, to bolster the prejudice issue should it arise?

  5. Anonymous says:

    Rob, you are correct, McCabe did not object to Government claim that the witness was unavailable and the introduction of the deposition as a substitute.

  6. Rob S says:

    Would Article 37 of the UCMJ apply to the McCabe case (undue command influence)? http://www.theusreport.com/the-us-report/judge-wont-dismiss-charges-against-seal-for-undue-command-in.html

  7. Anonymous says:

    If you asked the panel for a BCD you’d be IAC. See the case law.