Posted on Nov 19, 2014
Military court weighing fate of condemned soldier. What Are Your Thoughts?
394K
3.4K
1.23K
80
79
1
From: Army Times
A former U.S. soldier sentenced to death for killing two fellow soldiers and injuring 14 others in an attack in Kuwait is pinning his hopes of staying alive on an argument jurors should have never seen his diary.
Attorneys for 43-year-old Hasan K. Akbar argued on Tuesday that the one-time sergeant's writings, which include details of how he converted to radical Islam, were so inflammatory, that without the proper context, jurors were most likely to focus on the most damaging parts while considering whether to impose a death sentence.
"They didn't present the information in any meaningful way," said Lt. Col. John Potter, a military lawyer arguing the case for Akbar before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Washington.
Akbar was with the 326th Engineer Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, when he was sentenced to death in 2005. He killed Army Capt. Christopher S. Seifert and Air Force Maj. Gregory L. Stone in Kuwait two years earlier during the early days of the Iraq war.
Prosecutors say he threw four hand grenades into tents as members of his division slept, then fired his rifle at soldiers in the ensuing chaos on March 23, 2003. A military jury at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, convicted Akbar and handed down the sentence. The military has not carried out an execution since 1961. Akbar is one of five ex-soldiers facing a death sentence, the only one for actions in the Iraq war.
Potter told the judges the defense failed to prepare witnesses and errantly let jurors see Akbar's diary, which contained multiple anti-American passages.
Potter said allowing the jury to read the diary "eviscerated the defense in any meaningful way."
"We think the diary, there's no tactical reason to submit the diary," Potter said.
In one entry dated Feb. 23, 2002, Akbar wrote that he believed staying in the Army would eventually lead him to prison.
"I had a premonition that if I re-enlisted I would find myself in jail. That is probably true because I already want to kill several of them," Akbar wrote of his fellow soldiers.
The judges hearing the case focused on how the diary fit into the rest of the defense strategy, asking whether attorneys did anything to put the passages in the context of Akbar's pre-military life or any mental issues he may have had.
Potter noted that the defense put on 38 minutes of mitigation evidence and argument and didn't present any testimony from his family to humanize him. Instead, the lawyers failed by letting jurors pick through the diary and focus on the passages that left their client in the worst possible light.
Prosecutors said Akbar's defense attorneys acted in his best interest to try and prevent a death sentence from being issued in one of the "most egregious offenses in modern military history." The defense attorneys focused on the most viable arguments and witnesses, Maj. Kenneth Borgnino said.
Prosecutors noted that much of Akbar's family likely wouldn't have made a good impression on the witness stand.
The judges did not indicate when a ruling would be issued.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2014/11/19/akbar-appeal-111914/19265341/
A former U.S. soldier sentenced to death for killing two fellow soldiers and injuring 14 others in an attack in Kuwait is pinning his hopes of staying alive on an argument jurors should have never seen his diary.
Attorneys for 43-year-old Hasan K. Akbar argued on Tuesday that the one-time sergeant's writings, which include details of how he converted to radical Islam, were so inflammatory, that without the proper context, jurors were most likely to focus on the most damaging parts while considering whether to impose a death sentence.
"They didn't present the information in any meaningful way," said Lt. Col. John Potter, a military lawyer arguing the case for Akbar before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Washington.
Akbar was with the 326th Engineer Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, when he was sentenced to death in 2005. He killed Army Capt. Christopher S. Seifert and Air Force Maj. Gregory L. Stone in Kuwait two years earlier during the early days of the Iraq war.
Prosecutors say he threw four hand grenades into tents as members of his division slept, then fired his rifle at soldiers in the ensuing chaos on March 23, 2003. A military jury at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, convicted Akbar and handed down the sentence. The military has not carried out an execution since 1961. Akbar is one of five ex-soldiers facing a death sentence, the only one for actions in the Iraq war.
Potter told the judges the defense failed to prepare witnesses and errantly let jurors see Akbar's diary, which contained multiple anti-American passages.
Potter said allowing the jury to read the diary "eviscerated the defense in any meaningful way."
"We think the diary, there's no tactical reason to submit the diary," Potter said.
In one entry dated Feb. 23, 2002, Akbar wrote that he believed staying in the Army would eventually lead him to prison.
"I had a premonition that if I re-enlisted I would find myself in jail. That is probably true because I already want to kill several of them," Akbar wrote of his fellow soldiers.
The judges hearing the case focused on how the diary fit into the rest of the defense strategy, asking whether attorneys did anything to put the passages in the context of Akbar's pre-military life or any mental issues he may have had.
Potter noted that the defense put on 38 minutes of mitigation evidence and argument and didn't present any testimony from his family to humanize him. Instead, the lawyers failed by letting jurors pick through the diary and focus on the passages that left their client in the worst possible light.
Prosecutors said Akbar's defense attorneys acted in his best interest to try and prevent a death sentence from being issued in one of the "most egregious offenses in modern military history." The defense attorneys focused on the most viable arguments and witnesses, Maj. Kenneth Borgnino said.
Prosecutors noted that much of Akbar's family likely wouldn't have made a good impression on the witness stand.
The judges did not indicate when a ruling would be issued.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2014/11/19/akbar-appeal-111914/19265341/
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 487
LTC (Join to see)
Honestly, ALL RELIGION is dangerous. Â Religion is the most destructive force we humans have ever invented.
(1)
(0)
If it was one of my family members all I would have to say; "Leavenworth will not last forever, I will be waiting for you".
(1)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
MSgt Dennis Blackmon I would assume it's because they are military MP's and a prison is a nasty dirty environment. They don't normally have A/C and you have to control/restrain filthy sweaty inmates that often try to douse you with their latest concoction of feces and urine mixed with caustic cleaners. BDU!s are most appropriate for that environment!
(0)
(0)
I am lost in trying to understand why he is still alive. Ten years is a very long time. It is like when a child gets caught doing something and the child finds many new and ridiculous ways to change the outcome (the punishment). Get it over with and move on. I believe life is very precious, but the lives this man took were very precious as well. The threat must be exterminated. How is the wait ten years long?
(1)
(0)
I believe his actions speak louder than any possible interpretation of his diary could ever and I support the death penalty based on his actions.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Alexander Aguilar
Death penilty should stick there is no if ands or buts he killed his some of his fellow soldiers there is no excuse for that.
(0)
(0)
Kill that terrorist son of a goat and his buddy Nadal too. We should do a better job screening these Soldiers belonging to this radical faith before we hand them a weapon.
With that said bring on the hate mail!
With that said bring on the hate mail!
(1)
(0)
So I am a little confused. I thought someone like a General could have done his court martial right there right then, and then had him executed like they did in WWI and WWII. I know how it worked out, however did the law change or do we just not do that anymore?
(1)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
SPC Nathan Fanton Unfortunately, with instant communications that are available today, the Generals down range have very little decision making powers left. I'm pretty sure the politicians and those in charge at the Pentagon would have relieved him of duty immediately and drummed him out of the military had he convened a general court martial and executed him in theater. The court of public opinion would have been up in arms if they perceived the accused didn't have time to mount a credible defense and receive a fair trial.
(0)
(0)
SPC Christopher Perrien
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - You are correct. However given the current "political correctness" disease of the country. I am certain , a black general could have done it and faced zero repercussions. Now a white general , especially with O-boy in office would have been treated as you mention , plus let us not forget , a kangaroo trial for violation of this POS's Civil Rights. White people have none apparently, particularly in the military or any government job, unless they are some sexual deviant..
(0)
(0)
PO1 Ron Clark
SPC Christopher Perrien - Your example of a "Black General" could have done it with zero repercussions is a little offensive. You act like blacks are privileged in the military Master Chief, if you think that is so, you are SOOOOO wrong!
(0)
(0)
Read This Next