According to this WaPo article, in addition to facing 16 specs of premeditated murder, Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales now also faces charges that he used alcohol and steriods in Afghanistan.

7 Responses to “Government reportedly tacks on alcohol and steriod use charges in Bales case”

  1. Zachary Spilman says:

    Doping and drunk. Perhaps the New York Times op-ed questioning his ability to be provident wasn’t that far off the mark after all…

  2. Phil Cave says:

    MJs are routinely called upon to accept voluntary guilty pleas from accused service members who have difficulty remembering the specifics of their offenses committed while under the influence of alcohol.  This can be accomplished in reliance upon the accused’s own memory, or, in the absence of such, the accused’s assertion that he has no reason to doubt that he committed the offense(s) as alleged. An accused’s inability to recall the facts underlying his offense(s) does not preclude his guilty plea from being provident if he is personally convinced of his guilt based upon an assessment of the government’s evidence against him.  See United States v. Moglia, 3 M.J. 216, 218 (C.M.A. 1977)(inability to recall the facts relating to an offense does not preclude entering a plea of guilty if is convinced of guilt.  Citing to United States v. Luebs, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 475, 43 C.M.R. 315 (1971); United States v. Butler, 20 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 43 C.M.R. 87 (1971). As indicated in Luebs and Butler, personal awareness is not a prerequisite for a plea of guilty, but, rather, an inquiry must be made to ascertain if an accused is convinced of his own guilt. Such a conviction, a person’s inability to remember misconduct constitutng the offense charged “does not, by itself, negate the existence of any essential element of the offense.”  A guilty plea may be predicated on an accused’s assessment of the Government’s evidence against him.  United States v. Wiles, 30 M.J. 1097, 1100 (N.M.C.M.R. 1989).  Usually, the appellant’s elimination of such doubt is accomplished by resort to the statements of witnesses or victims to his offense(s). Absent reasons to challenge those facts, the accused may properly rely upon them to providently plead guilty.

  3. Zachary Spilman says:

    Indeed. As I wrote here. But I’m more interested in (though wasn’t clear about) the lack of mental responsibility defense that can be raised from circumstances that apparently involve the effects of Afghan black market steroids and booze smuggled in shampoo bottles (or whatever).

  4. JP Galligan says:

    Throw away charges for the TC to ensure they get a conviction ….. more importantly, why is the Defendant still at Leavenworth instead of transferred back to the confinement facility at Lewis…..?

  5. JP Galligan says:

    With all of the spam protection protocols, posting a comment here is like playing Jeopardy…..

  6. Michael Korte says:

    That was nice of the government to assist in the defense effort to avoid a death sentence.

  7. Lieber says:

    Galligan, there is a new PTC facility at Leavenworth.  I’d expect to see the Accused in high-profile cases often end up there (barring special medical needs).

    I’m not aware of any scientific reason why stanozolol would affect someone mentally (it’s a pretty mild anabolic steroid) but I’m sure the defense will try.