Posted on Jan 28, 2020
Under the law, is it required to prove beyond doubt that an officer or a soldier committed acts for which they are accused in the military?
1.54K
52
27
7
7
0
This question is based on a legal case, which I have been studying. The Prosecution presented hearsay and unverified statements against the Defendant. The Prosecution presented the jury with no evidence at all, just that the jury must find the accused guilty because this is what his Commander wanted the jury to do and this is why the jury was handpicked by the Commander. On face value, the trial appears biased against the accused and there appears to be a Conflict of Interest as provided in Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 7050.06.
Law
DoD
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 11
5
5
0
If you're talking about a court-martial, since there was a jury, from my understanding commanders are not the judge, the division has a colonel who is the judge and the jury is selected at random from leaders throughout the division. Just like a jury summons. The commander doesn't get to choose the jury
(5)
(0)
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana
However, is it proper for Prosecution to encourage the jury to find an accused guilty as charged because his or her Commander wants the jury to do so? SFC (Join to see)
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Gurinder (Gene) Rana As a closing argument? Why not? The job of the prosecutor is to convice the jury to convict. The job of the defense is to convince them not to. If the Prosecution makes that statement ( and the Prosecution, remember, goes first) then the Defense should make a similar exhortation that the Commander does NOT want them to convict.
If the COMMANDER actually makes thos or similar statements, then there are UCI issues.
I don't really see a difference between a prosecutor saying the Commander wants a conviction and a civilian prosecutor saying the people demand a conviction.
If the COMMANDER actually makes thos or similar statements, then there are UCI issues.
I don't really see a difference between a prosecutor saying the Commander wants a conviction and a civilian prosecutor saying the people demand a conviction.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Sounds like the commander is using undue influence or command influence. There is another legal term for this kind of interference by a Sr. Officer
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
IMHO, yes. A lot of good people have been falsely accused and jailed for something they didn't do.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google