5th Stryker Brigade Cases and Other Updates
5th Stryker Brigade: The Seattle Times reports that Spc. Michael Wagnon will, contrary to the investigating officer’s recommendation (prior coverage here), face “murder and conspiracy-to-murder charges” at a general court-martial. Spc. Wagnon will reportedly also face charges for another shooting incident in Afghanistan. Wagnon’s attorney, Colby Vokey, said his client is not seeking a plea deal because he is innocent of the charges, and denounced the decision to move ahead with a court-martial, “I think this is an incredible decision that flies in the face of the investigative officers’ recommendation, the evidence and common sense.”
Ft. Carson: Here is an interesting story out of Ft. Carson, via the Denver Post, that I am guessing will eventually be chalked up to paperwork passing in the night rather than the conspiracy theory that seems to pervade the story,
Psychiatrists have determined that a Fort Carson soldier suffered from severe mental illness the day he allegedly shot and killed a Taliban commander in Afghanistan — but that didn’t stop the U.S. Army from scheduling a court-martial on a murder charge. . . .
The psychiatrists, appointed by the Army, concluded that Lawrence suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia and therefore lacked the mental capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.
Lawrence faces a charge of premeditated murder in the Oct. 17 slaying of Mullah Mohebullah, who was shot in the face as he lay shackled in a cell at a U.S. Army installation in Arghandab, Afghanistan.
The shooting happened shortly after Lawrence was returned to his unit following a visit he requested to a combat stress clinic.
Culp had attempted to block an Article 32 hearing in late November, . . . arguing that a separate inquiry into Lawrence’s mental health should be completed first.
An Army hearing officer, Capt. David Thompson, turned down that request and, in a ruling provided to Lawrence’s defense team Monday, found no grounds “to believe that the accused was not mentally responsible for the offense” or “not competent to participate in the defense.”
USS ENTERPRISE CO Case: Here is an interesting story out of the Virginian-Pilot that confirms at least one thing, Charlie Gittins will have a lot more to say about the CAPT Owen Honors story. Here are some excerpts from Mr. Gittins’ comments.
Capt. Owen Honors intends to stay in the Navy and should not face further punishment for producing a series of controversial videos aboard the aircraft carrier Enterprise because they were condoned by his superiors, Honors’ civilian lawyer said Monday.
In an interview with The Virginian-Pilot, attorney Charles Gittins contended that the videos were in line with standards for acceptable behavior at the time, and he said at least five Navy admirals who saw them never raised objections.
“If they violated standards so clearly, how could five admirals have missed that?” Gittins said. . . .
Gittins said that while the videos may not be acceptable in today’s Navy, norms were different when Honors was making them four and five years ago. He likened punishing Honors for the videos to disciplining officers today for bringing exotic dancers into officers’ clubs years ago.
“You can’t apply standards from a past era to a current one,” said Gittins, a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who is known for representing high-profile military clients, including service members accused in the Tailhook and Abu Ghraib scandals.
Gittins also argued that the videos had a valid teaching purpose. He said that Honors, who has not spoken publicly about the matter, was using humor to relay important safety messages to the crew. “He needed a way to make sure he was getting through to them,” Gittins said.
He said none of the junior sailors in the videos was coerced into participating. “There was no shortage of volunteers. People lined up to be in them. It was an honor to be in them.”
Gittins said the videos weren’t meant to denigrate anyone, including gay sailors.
“Those videos were meant for a command that had unique challenges and shared experiences,” he said. “You can’t understand them unless you were there.”
I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the overall comments, because I think there is merit to both sides of this argument and I don’t know all the facts. But I will ask this question, is the Navy of today really that different in terms of acceptable behavior/standards than the Navy in 2007? The rest of the story is worth reading and has some interesting facts, including the fact that Mr. Gittins was hired within a few days of the videos becoming public. The story also notes that the 2-year statute of limitations for Admiral’s Mast has run on these offenses.
“found no grounds “to believe that the accused was not mentally responsible for the offense” or “not competent to participate in the defense.”
So, did he make this ruling before he read the shrink’s report or after? The article makes it sound as though the report came out before the IO’s recommendation. That’s why Culp says he is not surprised. It sounds like he is not surprised because the Article 32 officer’s recommendations appear to have become a mere roadbump to the SJA’s beeline to court martial, nothwithstanding the line jurisprudence emphasizing that the Article 32 is an important compentent of due process under the UCMJ to protect Servicemembers from facing baseless charges. IMHO, the disregard of the 32 IO’s recommendation in an SJA’s pretrial advice is a good “field test” to see if some kind of misconduct is going on within the prosecution of a case. Usually, you can find UCI or a fifth amendment due process violation.
Whereas CAPT Honors may not have to contend with Show Cause proceedings (we’ll see), he still may be out quicker than he desires (see NAVADMIN 006/11). The Navy is looking for some CAPTs and CDRs to force into retirement. This case is an administrative law playground!!