Here is the WSJ report:

In total, Maj. Hasan was convicted of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

The trial will next move to a sentencing phase, which will decide whether Maj. Hasan receives a sentence of life in prison or death for his crimes.

More later.  H/t Ama

18 Responses to “Hasan Convicted”

  1. Contract Lawyer says:

    Let me be the first to comment.
    Odds makers, what is the over under here?  For Manning it was 30; very good pick.  I had predicted 20 to 30, with a later prediction of the higher end of that.  Never less, I predict Manning will be out in 10 to 12.  He shoulhaving comfort in that considering what he was facing.
    as for Hasan, I will start the bidding with LWOP/Death.  I predict death and hope they do it by hanging.

  2. ResIpsaLoquitur says:

    Sorry, CL, but lethal injection is the sole method used for military executions.
    For the sentence, I’m pretty sure that the only options available to the panel are life, LWOP, an death.  (I’m not even sure about life–I looked at the MCM punishment table and I can’t remember if LWOP is the minimum or not.)  For personal reasons, I don’t like the application of the death penalty.  But then, I’m not on the panel–I can’t imagine them NOT reaching a death sentence here.

  3. stewie says:

    Life is on the table, as well as LWOP and death.  Obviously the last one is a foregone conclusion, but since he’s given up at the merits, and assuming he does so as well for sentencing, are we going to see someone put to death with zero mitigation presented and think that’s ok because we REALLY don’t like the guy?
    Apparently that’s the track we are headed down, but just remember, that means a precedent is set for folks we don’t necessarily feel so strongly about later that as long as that person decides to commit suicide by court-martial and a sanity board says he’s A-OK (for all that’s worth) we are just fine with no mitigation presented at sentencing.

  4. AFJAGCAPT says:

    @stewie, he’s got a constitutional right to a defense and part of that is to choose what he wants to do. He’s done that and maybe will continue at sentencing; maybe because he wants to die. My own practical “objections” to a death sentence previously noted in another post aside, I don’t think we give the guy a pass when the punishment fits the crime just because he chooses not to fight back for whatever reason. Maybe he thinks he deserves to die (he sure as hell does in my opinion) and maybe he doesn’t feel he has much to offer in mitigation that would compare to shooting 50 fellow soldiers (if, as I’ve read, he was really telling redeploying soldiers they were war criminals in therapy I’m not sure he’d get much from his duty performance). And as to “precedent” set, it’s not like we are referring capital cases everyday.

  5. stewie says:

    Ok, so since we don’t do too many of these, then we shouldn’t worry much about any precedents because after-all, it will only affect a few people?
    So if we’ve decided that if we really think Person A deserves to die anyways, then it’s no big deal if Person B, where it might be a bit more iffy, and also wants to just die, gets the same level of “justice”?
    I mean if your argument was simply, no big deal because people SHOULD be allowed to commit suicide by court if they want to, that would be understandable (even as I disagree with it), and you’d have some civilian case-law support for that position by the way.  But the, he deserves it anyways/even if it’s a bad idea we don’t do that many so no big deal argument you are putting forward is a bit harder to logically or legally justify IMO. Particularly in the capital arena.

  6. AFJAGCAPT says:

    1. Yes, I think likelihood of similar occurrences (slim) is relevant to analyzing the actual harm of a “bad” precedent is being set. You’ll note the quotes around precedent in my post. I’m not really what precedent you’re so concerned about; the Military Judge has not ruled that the accused has a right to suicide by court-martial; in fact, Hasan has denied he is trying to die (obviously, I think that claim is questionable). But what percedent is being set that you think is so harmful? Are we going to start seeing accused request their cases be referred as capital because they don’t want to spend decades in jail? I doubt it. Perhaps I was unclear in my previous musings, but I just don’t see how the circumstances of this case are going to have the slippery-slope effect you seem to be so concerned about.
    2. I think this is a false analogy. Again, I don’t know how Hasan’s choices are really going to impact person B. And if there is another capital case referred where the accused pursues the same strategy, again within his/her rights, how does what is happening with this case have any legal impact? Maybe it gives the later accused the idea to do it? Is that the “bad” precedent we’re worried about? Given that Hasan is going to spend years or decades in prison before execution (if he even lives that long with his injuries), I’m not sure we’re going to see a rush of folks to folibis is lead.
    3. And yes, if the law authorizes capital punishment and it is handed down, I don’t think the fact that the accused is okay with that means it can’t happen. Perhaps you oppose capital punishment in general which I get but if not, think about where we are with opposing what Hasan is doing. So it would be fine for the State to execute him over his objection and drag him kicking (pun not intended) and screaming to the needle, but the fact he is actually agreeing to it means its wrong? That seems a bit illogical to me. If you want to call that my approval of suicide by court, I’m good with that. I don’t get the ‘deserves it anyway bad ideas comment’…if you are referring to my reference to my previous objections, all I had said earlier was that I though LWOP might be a worse punishment given his current physical suffering and practically easier given CAAFs appellate tastes and the lower potential to have to drag folks back to testify again at a rehearing on sentence.

  7. ContractLawyer says:

    I would not worry about a re-hearing for sentencing.  If that happens, it will be easy to get the witnesses back to testify.  Penty of aggrivation.  They could probably present no aggrivation case and still get death.  

  8. stewie says:

    1. You don’t know what the fear is? Sure you do, as I said assuming that the MJ decides to let him not present any mitigation evidence that sets a precedent (also assuming the appellate courts agree) that places the military justice system on one side of a divide.  That you can be an accused, and we will execute you if you choose not to submit any mitigation evidence at all. 
    2.  There are logical ramifications and implications to that which will impact the role of mitigation in sentencing, and yes, there are folks who decide to just rush to death, this isn’t a novel issue albeit one without a Supreme Court case that’s directly hit upon it yet, there is a decent level of case law on both sides at the lower levels.
    3. I think there is more than the accused’s thoughts/feelings/desires at play here.  Society has a right and an obligation to make sure the DP is deserved, regardless of whether or not the accused thinks it is.  The deserve it anyways comment is toward the idea that we don’t like this guy at all and want him dead so whatever gets us there is ok.  I think IF you are going to have capital punishment, then what the accused wants, while a factor, is not nearly as important as having a rigorous process that reaches, as best as flawed humans can, a verdict based on as much information as possible.
    Now, I’m against the DP, but ignoring that, yes, I think you have to view it as the obligations of the state that seeks to assert the right to take a life to due process and justice over whether or not an accused wants it or not.

  9. Cap'n Crunch says:

    This nutjob wants to be Martyred by the “Great Satan” — apparently we are going to give him what he wants, in a painless and quick manner.  I bet he even waives appeals.  I’d think about LWOP because that would mean that he’d be locked away, in a cell, never to get out, and wouldn’t get what he wanted.  But, I agree that I think the panel gives him death, which is exactly what he wants.

  10. Dew_Process says:

    I’m with Stewie – if the State is going to execute someone, they must ensure that the process is fair, just and legal, not only for the accused at question, but for society in general.
    One question that I’ll throw out, because if anyone has any authority on it, I’d really appreciate it.  There is no question that an accused has a constitutional right to defend him/herself (assuming competence) at trial.  That occurred here with the predictable results.  The question is, does the right to defend yourself on the merits extend to sentencing, or can the judge direct “standby counsel” to get involved?
    Hypothetical: Suppose D opts to defend himself in a case involving violent federal felonies.  He’s convicted of everything and his presumptive guideline range is also hypothetically 60 to 240 months, depending on how one looks at whether or not the offenses overlap or are multiplicious, etc.  D refuses to cooperate with federal probation, who in turn recommends a 200 month sentence.  Does it violate D’s right to “defend himself” if the District Judge orders standby counsel to provide a defense Sentencing Memorandum, addressing both the Guideline issues and any mitigation or extenuation evidence they have?  If so, what is the prejudice – or is prejudice irrelevant here?
    Alternatively, for those who’ve been around a while, consider the case of Timothy McVeigh — the closest example that I could think of.  McVeigh of course, had experienced and competent counsel throughout, and got death – again, something not unexpected under the circumstances.  Post-trial, while his appeals were pending, the defense discovered that a massive amount [3,000+ pages if my memory is correct] of Brady material that had not been turned over.  The Court of Appeals was advised of this and according to one of McVeigh’s defense counsel, was about to remand the matter back to the District Court for “further proceedings.”  There was also some indication that the Government was going to throw in the towel on the death penalty, and ask the judge to resentence him to LWOP to “cure” the Brady violation.   At that point McVeigh instructed his counsel to withdraw all appellate and post-trial actions as he didn’t relish the thought of spending life in a concrete box at the Supermax at Florence, CO.
    The District Court held a hearing and ultimately ruled that McVeigh made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of his right to appeal, was competent and therefore, could lawfully waive the appellate process even though it meant his being executed — suicide by waiver or something along those lines.
    But considering the mandatory review language in Articles 66 & 67, UCMJ, for death penalty cases, I’m not sure [to my knowledge, it’s never happened before], I’m not so sure that Hasan could legally waive appellate review.  If the UCMJ can preclude one from pleading guilty to a death eligible offense referred as capital, can it not also preclude waiver of the mandated appellate process?

  11. Cap'n Crunch says:

    Lets assume he can’t waive.  Is filing a no error brief at CAAF and ACCA the same thing?  Seems like a distinction without difference to me and the chance of relief based on an independent review of the evidence somewhere between zero and nill.

  12. soonergrunt says:

    I’m sure the panel will give Hassan the death penalty.  I’m no lawyer, so I have no idea what the ACCA and the CAAF will do with that, but the past record isn’t a strong one as has been noted here many times.
    Having said that, I would actually love to see the panel go LWOP, being that DP is what Hassan wants.  I’d love nothing more than to hear a news report in five or six years time about how he finally succumbed to his injuries and died alone in the Leavenworth hospital, and how he’ll be buried in an unmarked grave in an undisclosed location.  I’d look up from whatever I was doing, and like millions of other Americans say something along the lines of “Oh. Well. I thought that guy had died a long time ago.  HEY, HONEY, WHAT’S FOR DINNER?”

  13. Dyskolos says:

    My thinking goes along the line of soonergrunt’s. I’d like to see LWOP so this man may endure a long and unhappy life contemplating his crimes and his fate. 

  14. Christopher Mathews says:

    @ Dyskolos – He could get the death penalty and still have a long and unhappy life, if past performance is any guide.

  15. Contract Lawyer says:

    If they give Hasan LWOP, I hope that they put Hasan and Bales in the same cell.  As I said in another post, “Death by Bales.” 
     If they give Hasan LWOP, I hope that they put Hasan and Bales in the same cell.  As I said in another post, “Death by Bales.” 

  16. Contract Lawyer says:

    Why did it say that twice?  Was it that good of an idea?  OK, I will say it a third time:  “Death by Bales!”  These two would make a nice couple. 

    Another idea, throw Chelsea Manning in there with them!

  17. Some Army Guy says:

    stewie says:
    August 24, 2013 at 11:01 am
    Life is on the table, as well as LWOP and death.  Obviously the last one is a foregone conclusion, but since he’s given up at the merits, and assuming he does so as well for sentencing, are we going to see someone put to death with zero mitigation presented and think that’s ok because we REALLY don’t like the guy?”
    If (when) Hasan gets the death, it will be because he shot and killed 13 US soldiers.  While he was wearing a US Army uniform.  While shouting “Allahu Akbar” and professing duty to an entity whose primary goal is the destruction of America.
    I know this is a military justice blog, and our focus is the law, but the facts in this case are undisputed.  Hasan has chosen not to fight it. 
    Mitigation evidence?  Hasan doesn’t care and wants to die.  He wanted to die in November 2009.  Hasan is choosing the level of justice he’s receiving.  He’s not going to get the DP because he’s not submitting any mitigation evidence — he’s probably going to receive it because the facts and the crime, moreso than just about any other crime in the modern Army, deserve it — not because we just don’t like the guy and the MJ is going to let the government trample his rights and deny any E&M evidence.

  18. stewie says:

    I’m not a fan of the guy, nor have I said he’s misunderstood or just needs a time-out.  So I don’t understand repeating what we all know.  We don’t ordinarily make rules that affect future folks based on one outlier case because “the facts are undisputed” and the accused is about as bad as it can get.
    This is a whole lot less (if at all) about saving his life than ensuring due process and rule of law.  As you say, the guy is dying regardless, so this is actually the PERFECT case to make sure the rules are followed and no bad precedents set because there are few, if any, cases less likely to not get a DP even on re-sentencing if it came to that.