.jpg)
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The military justice system from a victim's perspective
Here's a link to an article from the Pike County (Pennsylvania) Courier about the Martinez capital court-martial written by the widow of one of the two officers Staff Sergeant Martinez is charged with killing. And here's a link to an LA Times article about both of the widows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I am impressed with this posting. It is unusual that a member of the defense bar would give the victims a second thought. While an SJA, I have had military defense counsel tell me they are ethically PROHIBITED from considering the victims, which I thought was bull.
Anon 0935 - your comment is an excellent example of why we have so much acrimony in the MILJUS arena. As a human being, of couse we defense counsel think of the victim. We're not monsters. As advocates charged with defending our clients, we must do what is in the best interest of our clients - not justice, not the victim, but our client.
So, your defense counsel may have been inartful in their wording, but in reality, we cannot say "Well, we won't do X Y or Z because of the victim." If it is ultimately in our client's best interest we must pursue that course of action, provided it is ethical.
You seem to have taken our professional stance as our personal stance, a common error, though one that as a lawyer you should ostensibly be able to understand. I can tell you that many defense counsel are in fact very human, and appreciate the toll that crime takes on all of society (even the criminal). I don't enjoy cross examining a victim, but I do it when I must to protect the rights of my client, innocent or guilty.
I agree. Any DC that doesn't factor in the "victim" impact, whether it be how they play in front of the panel on the merits or for sentencing, is not going to be very effective for his/her client. That is especially true when a victim is testifying. Add to that, the implementation of robust Victim/Witness Assistance Programs, not factoring all of that in is a sure-fire recipe for disaster.
Indeed, if you treat them with respect and dignity up front, e.g., in pretrial interviews, then (and probably only then) will you get them to relax enough to give you factual information that might help your client.
Anon 0935 - I don't know what Branch of the Services you are in, but if you experienced that more than once, clearly the DC are not being trained adequately, both in trial tactics and basic professional responsibility issues.
Good points, all.
But, having read the 2 articles, what was distressing to me - even as a defense counsel - is the fact that the Army isn't making on-post quarters available for these two women. Surely between Ft. Bragg and Pope AFB, the government could've found lodging for them so they didn't have to rent an apartment out of pocket. "Command Interest" could have made that happen . . .
At least in the Navy and Marines, there is a woeful lack of guidance and training for very junior counsel. As SJA, I would try to bring the defense cousnel along, but (in a rape case for example) the defense counsel's first statement to me after getting the case was usually along the lines of "the little slut wanted it." Offensive, unprofessional, and all too common.
Anon 0905: From your experience, is the lack of training due to lack of funding, or lack of "command interest?" Or, worse yet, both? I'm actually working on a project looking into the issue of providing CLE for new (or recently new) military DC, on the "basics" of practice, e.g., "How To:" investigate a case/crime scene; prepare for and do a "suppression hearing;" etc., so any comments / thoughts are welcome by all.
I agree with your assessment as to the comments - EVEN IF as a DC, you ultimately decide on an "enticement" defense, that's hardly a reason to make such a public comment, especially to the SJA.
Post a Comment