Last December, in a Worth the Read post, I said:

Judge McMahon has issued a decision in United States v. Santiago, 13 Cr. 039(CM) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013), in the Southern Dist. of N.Y.

Today Reuters reports:

A former Marine corporal was convicted on Wednesday of lying to military investigators about an accidental 2008 shooting in Iraq that partially blinded a Navy corpsman.

A federal jury in New York rendered a split verdict, finding Wilfredo Santiago guilty of one count of making false statements but acquitting him of a second.

The unusual case wound its way from a U.S. base in Iraq to a civilian courtroom in Manhattan more than six years after the shooting, following a series of bureaucratic delays within the military that drew scathing criticism from the trial judge, Colleen McMahon.

4 Responses to “Santiago update and closing a loop”

  1. J says:

    So had PFC Santiago lived and promoted, he would have posed a risk to others.
    Too soon?

  2. Accountability says:

    Marine spokesman said the case “was an anomaly and does not reflect the current practice of law within the Marine Corps.”Oh, then I guess everything is kewl.  Have had a number of clients that would have loved to use that defense.  “The blunt smoking was an anomaly and does not reflect my current practice concerning the use of intoxicants.”  So we good?We hear nothing from the Pentagon except the cry that commanders must continue to be CAs, as they have the responsibility for discipline.  Here a Marine shot a Corpsman in the face.  Command did nothing.  Where is the accountability for this failure?  Or is the commander only accountable when that advances an argument?      

  3. Carl says:

    You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury.

  4. Movie Quotes are bad mmkay says:

    This site needs to relax on the spam protection, I’m having to add things and getting double digits and stuff. There’s only so much the human mind is capable of.
    So, how long is it going to be before this case and the profound statements of the USMC spokesman about the ‘anomaly’ it presented, are put in context of the CMC, a certain Captain, and a certain Major – particularly in light of the fact that a new CMC has been recommended, needs confirmation by Congress, and there’s nothing on the horizon (apparently) to address the unsavory legal issues surrounding the CMC?
    I guess DoD is just hoping and waiting everyone forgets about all of that.