Per this article from CNN, Major Nidal Hasan is being charged with 32 specifications of attempted premeditated murder, one for each of the 30 military members and two civilians wounded in the November 5 shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas.

The New York Times reports that the additional charges were preferred today, raising the ire of the major’s civilian counsel, John Galligan, who says neither he nor Major Hasan’s military counsel were present when the charges were served. Mr. Galligan also complained that he has been kept in the dark about the Army’s plans to conduct a sanity board to determine Major Hasan’s competence to stand trial and mental status at the time of the shootings.

8 Responses to “Maj Hasan to face additional charges”

  1. Some Army Guy says:

    Who cares if Mr. Galligan was there when the charges were served on Hasan? I’ve never had the DC present nor seen anyone else do that. At most, when on good terms with the DC and when it suited me tactically, I may have given them a heads-up just before the charges were preferred.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Some Army Guy — Every move in this case is going to be scrutinized in the media. This is not your run-of-the-mill court-martial. Why not inform the CDC of the preferral of new charges? Required under the rules? No. But in this case it might have been smart to inform the CDC as a “courtesy” — doing so may have eliminated the media spin on this non-issue.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Nothing wrong or improper about it, but doesn’t charging 32 attempted murders kinda unnecessarily complicate things? You already have all of the murders. That alone is going to get you the DP barring serious mental health issues.

    Not wrong to do it, not deriding it, just wondering if it’s the smartest move.

  4. Dwight Sullivan says:

    I thought about whether a TC (or TC’s designee) serving a represented accused raises issues under Rule of Profesisonal Conduct 4.2. But after looking at the rule, I don’t think it does, since the rule allows such communications if “authorized by law to do so” and R.C.M. 602 authorizes (in fact, requires) the TC to cause the charges to be served on the accused.

  5. Some Army Guy says:

    Anon 1902
    How do we know he wasn’t informed? Galligan just complained that counsel wasn’t present. And if the NYT had a decent consultant on MJ issues, they would know that there’s no requirement (or even practice) of having the defense counsel present for service of charges.

  6. John O'Connor says:

    I agree that service of the charge sheet by the TC doesn’t raise any ethical issues, but it can get tricky. My shop (1995-98) had a rule that TCs personally served GCM charge sheets on confined accuseds. More than once I would hand the charge sheet through the slot and the accused would say he wanted to ask me a question. I would immediately stop them and say that if they had anything to say they should communicate with their DC.

    As someone mentioned abhove, it’s certainly a good practice to alert the DC that you’re going to serve his client, if for no other reason than you might want to cut a deal with that DC someday.

  7. Anonymous says:

    There is nothing improper with serving a represented accused because the Officer reading the charges starts off the reading by telling the Soldier not to speak….

    I only once was present when my client was preferred…and that was because I just happened to be in the area when it was going down. Is a courtesy though, and its not that hard to pick up the phone and tell counsel ahead of time.

    Its a non-issue, but when you are facing what Galligan is facing, you are left barking at the moon.

  8. Cossio says:

    No #1 – Everyone saw this comming, of course there were going to be more charges, and I don’t think they are done yet. I would have also got ’em on recklessly discharging a fire arm to endager life, at the very least. Mr. Gilligan shouldn’t had been shocked.

    No #2 I’ve had charges faxed and handed to me by Brig Personel (who couldn’t stop laughing at “attempting to disobey an order” not to read emails). A non-issue, but yes, what do you expect Poor Gilligan to do.