Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Talk About Hot Air... | The FoS Party »

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Watada Trial May Be Declared a Mistrial

posted by on February 7 at 13:35 PM

Feat-160.jpg

A text just arrived from Eli Sanders, covering the Ehren Watada court martial at Fort Lewis…

Danger of a mistrial. Will know more by 2.

Here’s Eli from Fort Lewis:

The judge has given the gov attorney 15 minutes to come up with an argument that will convince him not to declare a mistrial or restart the entire case.

Here’s the issue: the government entered into a “stipulation,” an agreement with Watada, on the charges of missing movement—not getting on the plane to go to Iraq. Watada admitted to that. Watadad says that even though he admitted to not getting on the plane, he still believes he has a defense against the charge. His defense is that the order itself was illegal to begin with. The government believes that what Watada admitted to in the stipulation is enough to convict him on the charge of missing movement.

And here’s where it gets messy: The judge earlier excluded—ruled to be irrelevant—Watada’s entire defense (again, that the orders were illegal). This morning Watada’s attorney asked the judge to instruct the jury that Watada believes he has a defense, or at least a motivation, for doing what he did. The government doesn’t want the jury to be instructed that Watada believes he has a defense because that entire line of reasoning has been ruled irrelevant.

Now the judge has decided that the whole stipulation—the agreement between Watada and the government—is fatally flawed. The judge keeps saying, over and over, to the government attorneys, “Go back to contract [101], you don’t have a meeting of the minds.” (He means that they never had a valid stipulation because they didn’t agree about what it meant, so they have no “meeting of the minds.”)

The lawyers for both sides don’t agree with the judge. It’s literally true, according to the defense, that Watada didn’t get on the plane. But he has a reason that he’s not allowed to introduce—again, the war is illegal. The judge thought that Watada knew that by entering into the stipulation that he was essentially admitting guilt. After questioning Watada himself, the judge sees that Watada believes he does have a defense to the crime. So Watada’s interpretation of the stipulation (he admits facts, but doesn’t concede that he has no defense) is in conflict with the government’s interpretation (by admitting facts sufficient for conviction Watada’s motivation is irrelevant).

In two or three minutes we find out what happens.

UPDATE: Eli on the phone from Fort Lewis…

The judge has just ruled that there has been a “material breach of the stipulation,” and it’s inoperative. He gave the gov attorney’s two options. They can request a mistrial or they can reopen their case and try to prove it without the stipulation.

What that would mean is that the government would have to go back and prove every single fact with evidence and witnesses, which will draw out the trial. It would be impossible do in any immediate time frame. They would have to call people back from Iraq, call witnesses, gather evidence.

Watada’s defense attorney has completely outfoxed and outsmarted the government. He signed on to this stipulation, he let the government proceed with its prosecution and present its case, while at the same time reserving the right for Watada to believe that he did have a defense against the charge.

Most likely the trial will fall apart and they’ll have to start over. Or the trial will go forward under the same rules with the prosecution facing the increased burden of proving, or re-proving, all the things Watada had admitted to in the stipulation.

Will Watada be able to make his “illegal war” defense now? That’s an open question. At the very least if the trial is scuttled, the government will have to through the entire process of excluding Watada’s illegal war defense all over again.

Essentially in that scenario Watada would get a second shot at telling the world why he refused to deploy to Iraq.

This was originally posted at 12:30 PM. I moved it up.

RSS icon Comments

1

P-I article here.

Posted by Jason | February 7, 2007 12:49 PM
2

Wow. If a mistrial is declared, that will be huge. I mean, turning the entire military-justice-system-on-its-ear huge.

Posted by laterite | February 7, 2007 1:09 PM
3

ok, even I who used to write up charge sheets during my time in the military, am confused.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 7, 2007 1:13 PM
4

Reading the PI article, it sounds like bad news for Watada, not good news. It's not going to turn the military justice system on its ear; it's going to get the other dropped charges reinstated.

Posted by Fnarf | February 7, 2007 1:16 PM
5

This is starting to play out like some sort of modern day Dreyfus Affair. While this case has nothing to do with Watada's ethnicity or religion, it does have to do with the republican controlled military (GWBUSH is Commander in Chief, remember, so his 'views' would trickle down and through a miltary judge) needing the case to be resolved by how they want it to turn out. This is the same Commander in Chief which allowed the abuse at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

Posted by Phenics | February 7, 2007 1:29 PM
6

Re: 2pm update.

Wow.

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | February 7, 2007 1:52 PM
7

mr watada is my super super big love honey. i'd dream of making the sweet sex to his brave, noble manbutt.

Posted by adrian ryan | February 7, 2007 1:53 PM
8

mr watada is my super super big love honey. i'd dream of making the sweet sex to his brave, noble manbutt.

Posted by adrian ryan | February 7, 2007 1:54 PM
9

um, that wasn't really me@ 8 and/or @9. IMPOSTOR! but i do. dream of that. mmm. manbutt.

Posted by the real adrian | February 7, 2007 1:56 PM
10

With the 2 pm update, it seems like they are trying to work on a smoke screen which will ensure Watada is judically branded a "bad person"... drag the trial out beyond a time frame the media and public can remain interested to refuse to acknowledge that an officer has an obligation to not follow illegal orders, and the orders were based upon a war entered into through GWBUSH, 9-11 comish varified, lies.

Posted by Phenics | February 7, 2007 2:07 PM
11

I know that this is entirely beside the point, but Watada is damn cute. DAMN cute.

Posted by JAK | February 7, 2007 2:14 PM
12

Isn't THIS an interesting development?! Looks like Watada may see the light of day again after all!

Sometimes, humanity, in which I lack quite a bit of faith, comes through.

Posted by Gomez | February 7, 2007 2:28 PM
13

yeah, he is deliciously sexy. It sounds like the trial is going to get pretty ugly, which is good for anti-war people because it brings light to what they have been saying all along.

On a more personal note, here's hoping Watada is charged with violating Dont Ask dont tell (I share Adrian's sweet sweet manbutt opinions)

Posted by Brandon H | February 7, 2007 2:33 PM
14

Mmmm. Agreed, Brandon. I see the photos and I start thinking about what's underneath the uniform.

Eli's at the trial. Perhaps he could opine about actual in-person hotness as opposed to the photographic variety. Lt. Watada's fuckability has been lacking from the reporting thus far.

Posted by WatadaFan | February 7, 2007 3:47 PM
15

FNARF Wrote:
"it's going to get the other dropped charges reinstated."

Along with the potential jail time
associated with those charges. I am afraid that if Watada now has his day in court, he'll have to assume the full punishment in the event the jury finds him guilty. I don't think the Army will now be willing to negotiate reduced sentencing at a second trial, and in the event he is unable to be successful in proving his innocence, I suspect they'll try to maximize his time in jail.

---Jensen

Posted by Jensen Interceptor | February 7, 2007 4:11 PM
16

Hey Eli... good job explaining the complicated legal reasoning involved in this development. The media rarely get this sort of thing right. Thanks for taking the time to understand.

Posted by giantladysquirrels | February 7, 2007 4:49 PM
17

fnarf is a bit of a concern troll isn't he?

Posted by mirror | February 7, 2007 6:27 PM
18

dyzemtbg ikmdtrwh zbksrncld fnvoe khynqtjp eaqrtl omhkpitql

Posted by cyfg vjfoa | February 19, 2007 8:41 PM
19

esgprfnuj gnuemho dwlsoa hytsjlndz tlexipqd otfqiyz evdfps fpkhlejuy pxrtmiczw

Posted by lruaw xmqd | February 19, 2007 8:43 PM
20

esgprfnuj gnuemho dwlsoa hytsjlndz tlexipqd otfqiyz evdfps fpkhlejuy pxrtmiczw

Posted by lruaw xmqd | February 19, 2007 8:44 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).