by: Bob Unruh
In a surprising move, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces has put a high-profile case of a soldier convicted of killing a terrorist in Iraq on a fast track, with oral arguments scheduled next month.
Army Ranger 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, 28, whose conviction was
affirmed by an intermediate court, is serving a 15-year prison term in
Ft. Leavenworth. Oral arguments before the appeals court in Washington,
D.C., which are open to the public, will be heard April 23.
The lower court ruling determined that evidence from a prosecution witness that supported Behenna’s defense could be concealed by prosecutors during the course of the trial.
The soldier’s advocates, including his parents, have assembled a support structure for him centering on the Defend Michael website. They say they continue to hold hope that the CAAF will change the outcome after the first two rounds were lost in “a corrupt and outdated military justice system that refused to guarantee one of the most basic rights that Michael and his men fought for – the right to a fair trial.”
Behenna’s legal team filed its brief with the CAAF on Feb. 28.
“We were expecting that it would be some time before oral arguments were set. To our great amazement (and the military’s great frustration) the CAAF has expedited the hearing of oral arguments,” the website said.
“This we hope is the beginning of the end of the injustice which Michael has suffered at the hands of the military justice system – an injustice that as of last week has already imprisoned him at Ft. Leavenworth for three years running.”
An intermediate military appeals court had ruled that evidence that could have changed the outcome the trial can remain unaddressed.
WND has reported on the case for several years. The dispute focuses on the fact that a prosecution witness was prepared to testify that Behenna’s description of the circumstances surrounding the death of Ali Mansur on March 20, 2009, was supported by evidence.
Prosecutors refused to allow him to testify, then refused to tell the defense counsel about the likely exculpatory evidence. Defense attorneys did not find out about it until after the conviction.
Behenna, the son of Oklahomans Scott and Vicki Behenna, was put on trial for Mansur’s death. Mansur had been questioned about an attack that killed members of Behenna’s platoon. Behenna testified he was further questioning Mansur when Mansur lunged for his weapon, and he fired twice, killing the terrorist.
The prosecution argued that Behenna simply executed Mansur while he was seated on a rock. Prosecutors later argued it didn’t matter how the shooting happened, because Behenna didn’t have a right to defend himself from the terrorist.That left his parents unable to be silent.
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/army-ranger-seeking-vindication-for-killing-terrorist/
In a surprising move, the Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces has put a high-profile case of a soldier convicted of killing a terrorist in Iraq on a fast track, with oral arguments scheduled next month.
The lower court ruling determined that evidence from a prosecution witness that supported Behenna’s defense could be concealed by prosecutors during the course of the trial.
The soldier’s advocates, including his parents, have assembled a support structure for him centering on the Defend Michael website. They say they continue to hold hope that the CAAF will change the outcome after the first two rounds were lost in “a corrupt and outdated military justice system that refused to guarantee one of the most basic rights that Michael and his men fought for – the right to a fair trial.”
Behenna’s legal team filed its brief with the CAAF on Feb. 28.
“We were expecting that it would be some time before oral arguments were set. To our great amazement (and the military’s great frustration) the CAAF has expedited the hearing of oral arguments,” the website said.
“This we hope is the beginning of the end of the injustice which Michael has suffered at the hands of the military justice system – an injustice that as of last week has already imprisoned him at Ft. Leavenworth for three years running.”
An intermediate military appeals court had ruled that evidence that could have changed the outcome the trial can remain unaddressed.
WND has reported on the case for several years. The dispute focuses on the fact that a prosecution witness was prepared to testify that Behenna’s description of the circumstances surrounding the death of Ali Mansur on March 20, 2009, was supported by evidence.
Prosecutors refused to allow him to testify, then refused to tell the defense counsel about the likely exculpatory evidence. Defense attorneys did not find out about it until after the conviction.
Behenna, the son of Oklahomans Scott and Vicki Behenna, was put on trial for Mansur’s death. Mansur had been questioned about an attack that killed members of Behenna’s platoon. Behenna testified he was further questioning Mansur when Mansur lunged for his weapon, and he fired twice, killing the terrorist.
The prosecution argued that Behenna simply executed Mansur while he was seated on a rock. Prosecutors later argued it didn’t matter how the shooting happened, because Behenna didn’t have a right to defend himself from the terrorist.That left his parents unable to be silent.
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/army-ranger-seeking-vindication-for-killing-terrorist/
No comments:
Post a Comment