Judge Rogers grants Gray's habeas counsel more time

Judge Rogers issued this order today extending Ronald Gray's habeas counsel's deadline for filing their traverse until 30 September 2009. Gray v. Gray, No. 08-3289-RDR (D. Kan. June 18, 2009) (order). Judge Rogers explained: "Under circumstances which include novel habeas challenges to the imposition of a death sentence in a military proceeding, and the court's recent appointment of attorneys providing substantive legal assistance to petitioner, the court finds the 120 day extension granted herein does not constitute unwarranted delay in the court’s resolution of this capital habeas action." Id., slip op. at 1-2.

Recent activity in the Gray habeas case

On Thursday, Senior Judge Rogers issued four orders in the federal habeas corpus case of military death row inmate Ronald Gray. Three of the orders granted motions for counsel from the highly regarded Capital Habeas Corpus Unit (CHU) of the Federal Public Community Defender, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to appear pro hac vice. The fourth order granted in part those counsel's request for an extension in the deadline for filing their traverse to accommodate a mitigation investigation. Gray's counsel had sought a 120-day extension. Judge Rogers found "it appropriate under the circumstances to grant a preliminary extension of 60 days at this time. Once the period for filing a response to petitioner's motion has expired, the court will renew its consideration of petitioner's request for an additional sixty days to file a traverse." Gray v. Gray, No. 08-3289-RDR (D. Kan. May 21, 2009) (order).

Gray's counsel move for extension to filing deadline

Ronald Gray's counsel today asked for a 120-day extension in their deadline to file the traverse to the United States' response to his habeas petition. The motion, which is available here, is based largely on the defense's need for time to conduct a mitigation investigation, which apparently none of Gray's counsel ever received funding to perform. The motion is supported by an affidavit from Russell Stetler -- one of the nation's premier experts on capital mitigation investigations -- describing the investigation's necessity.

Is 1st Lt Watada Free and Clear?

As we noted on Tuesday, here, the US Government has decided not to proceed with further appellate proceedings challenging the double jeopardy ruling of US District Judge Benjamin Settles in Watada v. Head, No. C07-5549BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2008). Some reports have said that Watada will not be retried, but without citing any evidence other than the withdraw of the appeal.

If you will recall, the trial judge ruled that the military could proceed to retry Lieutenant Watada on two conduct unbecoming charges, see order here. The court wrote that the government could re-try Watada on two conduct unbecoming charges that were dismissed "without prejudice to ripen into prejudice upon completion of trial proceedings." Since the plea proceedings were never completed, the Court reasoned, there is no double jeopardy issue. See our prior report here.

Yesterday, according to the Honolulu Advertiser, here, a Fort Lewis spokesman said that leadership at Fort Lewis "is considering a full range of judicial and administrative options that are available, and those range from court-martial on those two remaining specifications, to nonjudicial punishment, to administrative separation from the Army."

If anyone has any information indicating that the government won't or will proceed on those charges, please drop us a note at noman@caaflog.com.

[UPDATE: Just after posting I received an alert that quotes 1st Lt Watada's lawyers as saying the Army won't pursue additional charges, story here. If anyone can confirm that please let us know.]