previous post next post  

Just a little snippet on Lieutenant Watada.

By The Armorer on February 22, 2007 | | Comments (9)

It's dropped out of the news, but I've been keeping an ear to the ground regarding Lieutenant Watada's case. And I've developed an... "anonymous source" speaking on background. Ooooo, sexy. Let's use the whole email (I am *not* a participant in the quoted discussion, btw, this is reprinted with permission).

From "someone I know":

I asked my former Brigade Trial Counsel what happened in terms that a "NUG" could understand and received this explanation (in RED) this morning. Now I get it……
It's hard to tell what is exactly going on from this newspaper article, but what I suspect happened is that while the prosecution and defense couldn't agree to the terms of a guilty plea, there was an agreement that both sides would accept certain facts as true. (In making this agreement, I am sure Watada was deriving some benefit - like the dismissal of a charge. The prosecution would also have had a reason to make the deal such as avoiding bringing in witnesses who have PCS'd or are currently deployed).

When there is a stipulation of fact, all sides have to sign it and agree that the facts are true. It then gets read to the panel as factual evidence. It appears that even though Watada signed the stipulation, in court he said he did not agree. Given this conflict, the Judge had no choice but to not accept the stipulation as evidence.

Since the prosecution was relying on the evidence to prove some of its charges and the loss of the evidence was not the prosecution's fault, the judge gave them the opportunity to continue with the case or ask for a mistrial.

In order to prove the case the government would have needed to produce witnesses or other evidence to replace what they believed to be agreed to.

If the witnesses they needed were not local or deployed, there was no way to go forward, so they asked the judge to start the case over by declaring a mistrial. The judge agreed.

A mistrial is a pretty unusual procedure. However, I know this civilian defense counsel - he is based out of Hawaii - and have had a few dealings with him. He is pretty much a jerk and also pretty sneaky. I am not surprised he is involved.

There's a follow-up:

…I did hear that my assumptions were correct in that Watada agreed to stipulate to certain facts (so that the gov didn't have to call as many witnesses) in exchange for the dismissal of two charges.

Watada then presented information that was in conflict with the Stip of fact- so the judge felt that he could not accept it.

I saw that Watada's attorney is saying that double jeopardy (can't try a person for the came crime twice) has attached and the case won't be retried.

I think that is all smoke and mirrors for the press or wishful thinking on the part of the civilian attorney.

My guess is that the government is gearing up to re-charge him in the near future and we will hear about it in the next few weeks or so.


Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

9 Comments

 
By MajMike on February 22, 2007 8:53 AM
if you'll remember, this same kind of "offering a statement in defense that is not in keeping with the stipulations" thingie is what caused some early hiccups in the Lynndie England court martial... i'm not getting excited. i say we should let the "t"s be crossed and the "i"s be dotted ever so carefully, lest we inadvertantly stumble down the road and cause a future invocation of double jeopardy.
 
By marvin on February 22, 2007 9:48 AM
I think the govt should re-file all the charges, included those dropped for the stip. Then the govt should request a change of venue - to Iraq, where all the witnesses are.
 
By ry on February 22, 2007 4:37 PM
There's a difference, but not much, between Watada and this guy. At least Watada didn't run away. At least the other guy eventually accepted that what he did was a breach of faith more than a 'valiant moral stand'.
 
By Marine6 on February 23, 2007 8:58 AM
Actually, I thinkthe situation is fairly simple. Watada freely entered into a negotiation with the government regarding the stipulated facts in return for dropping some of the charges. He then reneged on the deal, and thereby broke his word. I would reccharge his with everything and add a charge of conduct unbecoming for violating his sworn agreement. He ought to get a fair court, and then lock his sorry ass up in Leavenworth for the maximum. His actions bring disrespect to every honest man and woman who has taken the oath and lived (and died) according to that oath. Marine6 - Sends
 
By MajMike on February 23, 2007 9:44 AM
btw, we just got new into my unit one each 1LT coming off Active, who coincidently happens to have just come from stateside Stryker land. i'll be grilling him all next weekend for any poop he may have on the topic.
 
By Cricket on February 23, 2007 12:28 PM
I would like to see something along these lines: Me holding a pic of Lt. Watada and standing outside the courtroom, waiting for him to arrive. When he does, and sees me, I will spit on his picture. Symbolic, free speech and no assault. Would that be called spitting by proxy? One can dream...
 
By HomefrontSix on February 23, 2007 2:44 PM
Not only recharge him with ALL of the original charges but also let the stipulation stand and admit those items into court as fact. 2 strikes right there. Third one gets him good time at Leavenworth. Sounds good to me. I've also heard the same things as your source about the civilian defense attorney. Sneaky and underhanded were two of the adjectives used to describe him. Not the two most colorful ones but they were used.
 
By Hawk on February 23, 2007 7:04 PM
I've heard just the opposite. Lt. Watada understood his stipulations, it was the prosecution who made the mistake. It that is true than there may not be another trial.