Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine pilot not found guilty of cable car collision
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 02:22:54 GMT

In article <7bpmrf$hid$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Paul C. Jané
<pasha@colba.net> wrote:
> > > Well theres the sticking point. He wasn't tried (IIRC) under the "US
> > > justice system." He was tried under the UCMJ. So how good or bad a
> > > civilian court is makes no difference.
> >
> > All of the protections enjoyed by an accused in the US civilian court
> > system apply, and then some, to an accused in the military court
> > system.  In fact, an innocent man is a LOT better off in the military
> > system.
>
> Actually, I might very well be wrong, but I seem to recall that one
> doesn't have the right to remain silent under the UCMJ, as I said, I
> might be wrong...

Good thing you hedged.

    ART. 31. COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

    (a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to
    incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to
    which may tend to incriminate him.

    (b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or
    request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of
    an offense without first informing him of the nature of the
    accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any
    statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or
    suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as
    evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

    (c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to
    make a statement or produce evidence before any military
    tribunal if the statement or evidence in not material to the
    issue and may tend to degrade him.

    (d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this
    article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence,
    or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him
    in a trial by court-martial.

Note that these protections go much farther than what the courts
enforce in the civilian sector.  I know a certain Commander-in- Chief,
for example, who probably wishes like hell he'd been able to find a
provision like (c) in the federal civilian laws.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine pilot not found guilty of cable car collision
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 05:53:42 GMT

In article <36E0A281.A1E28EBE@ricochet.net>, Mark Andrew Spence
<mkspence@ricochet.net> wrote:
> > All of the protections enjoyed by an accused in the US civilian
> > court system apply, and then some, to an accused in the military
> > court system.  In fact, an innocent man is a LOT better off in the
> > military system.
>
>
> Same can be said for a guilty man as well.

In some narrow circumstances (as with weak evidence, or illegally
obtained evidence), that's probably correct.

> If you're a jarhead guilty of negligence, what better jury is there
> than one composed entirely of fellow jarheads?

I can hardly imagine a worse one.  Marines are notoriously intolerant
of willful, or near-willful screwups.  A bunch of jarheads is the
*last* place I'd go looking for sympathy after screwing up like that.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
From: baldwin@netcom.com (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: Re: Marine pilot not found guilty of cable car collision
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 1999 15:43:04 GMT

In article <pDaE2.109$644.6291687@news.randori.com>, gws
<gws@oscn.net> wrote:
> >What rights, in particular, do you believe the pilot didn't have
> >that he would have had in a civilian trial?
>
> One additional right comes immediately to mind: the right to avoid
> conviction unless 12 jurors unanimously agree he was guilty.  All
> that is required for conviction (or acquittal) under the UCMJ, I
> believe, is a majority vote.  There may be others.  CAVEAT: I do not
> hold myself out as an expert on the UCMJ.  I was a SWO and don't
> know notheeng about no steenkin UCMJ.

I'm not sure I'd call that a "right," and at least military members
have the right to have a jury, period.  In the civilian system, you
can be facing five years in prison and still not have the right to
demand a jury trial, if no one offense carries more than a 6-month
sentence.  (I am aware that it's not called a "jury" but the idea
is the same.)

Also, in the military system, the jury determines the sentence.  I
personally consider this a huge plus, particularly in politically
sensitive cases.

Those accused of really serious offenses must be convicted unanimously
-- I forget the threshold, but I'm pretty sure it applied to Ashby.
There's another threshold requiring a 3/4 vote, and another requiring
a 2/3 vote.  No offense requires only a simple majority vote, but
there are questions on which a simple majority can carry a motion.

There are also questions where a *minority* can force a finding in
favor of the accused.  For example, if 1/4+1 vote to reconsider a
sentence (downward) where 3/4 is required to impose a sentence, then
the sentence must be reconsidered.
--
 From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin  |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_    Finger baldwin@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  for PGP public    |+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /         key information.  |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------