Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
She plead guilty. A judge just threw out the guilty plea saying that he wasn't convinced that she knew her actions were wrong.
A new plea of "not guilty" has been entered.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Last edited by ¡B! on Thu May 05, 2005 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Quote:
Judge Throws Out England's Guilty Plea
By T.A. BADGER, Associated Press
FORT HOOD, Texas - A military judge on Wednesday threw out Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying he was not convinced that she knew her actions were wrong at the time.
Col. James Pohl entered a plea of not guilty for England to a charge of conspiring with Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. to maltreat detainees at the Baghdad-area prison.
The mistrial for the 22-year-old reservist, who appeared in some of the most notorious photographs from the 2003 abuse scandal, kicks the case back to the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.
The action came after Graner, the reputed ringleader of the abuse, testified as a defense witness at England's sentencing hearing that pictures he took of England holding a naked prisoner on a leash at Abu Ghraib were meant to be used as a legitimate training aid for other guards.
Other photos showed England standing next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid and pointing at a prisoner's genitals.
When England pleaded guilty Monday, she told the judge she knew that the pictures were being taken purely for the amusement of the guards.
Pohl said the two statements could not be reconciled.
"You can't have a one-person conspiracy," the judge said before he declared the mistrial and dismissed the sentencing jury.
Under military law, the judge could formally accept her guilty plea only if he was convinced that she knew at the time that what she was doing was illegal.
By rejecting the plea to the conspiracy charge, Pohl canceled the entire plea agreement.
During defense questioning, Graner said he looped the leash around the prisoner's shoulders as a way to coax him out of a cell, and that it slipped up around his neck. He said he asked England to hold the strap while he took photos that he could show to other guards later to teach them this prisoner-handling technique.
At that point Pohl halted Graner's testimony and admonished the defense for admitting evidence that ran counter to England's plea on the conspiracy charge and one count of maltreating detainees.
The judge did not discuss the other five counts to which England had pleaded guilty.
Graner, who is said to be the father of England's infant son, was found guilty in January and is serving a 10-year prison term for his role in the scandal.
In a handwritten note given to reporters Tuesday, Graner had said he wanted England to fight the charges.
"Knowing what happened in Iraq, it was very upsetting to see Lynn plead guilty to her charges," he wrote. "I would hope that by doing so she will have a better chance at a good sentence."
Graner maintains that he and the other Abu Ghraib guards were following orders from higher-ranking interrogators when they abused the detainees.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
She plead guilty. A judge just threw out the guilty plea saying that he wasn't convinced that she knew her actions were wrong.
A new plea of "not guilty" has been entered.
What?
She did not know that torturing prisoners was wrong?
Is she retarded (and I use this word in the true sense) and/or adjudicated incompetent so that the judge will not accept her guilty plea?
Has anyone ever heard of a judge doing this before?
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
genxgirl wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of a judge doing this before?
It happens.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
I'm glad you brought this up, because this is an interesting aspect of military justice that you don't see in the civilian courts, and I wanted to see how others would react to this.
Basically, you can't just plead guilty in the military court. The judge has an obligation to make sure that you are actually guilty regardless of your plea. What happened in this case is that Pvt. England plead guilty, and then her attorneys attempted to introduce mitigating evidence to try to get her a reduced sentence. The thing is, they crossed the line between mitigating evidence (circumstances that better explain why a person did something wrong) and exculpatory evidence (facts that make it appear that the person actually did not do anything wrong). Evidence was introduced that implied that she felt she was following a legitimate order, and that is a defense to a count to which she had plead guilty. The judge said that was not acceptable, and so he entered a not guilty plea on her behalf and now it will go to trial.
What do you think about that way of doing things as opposed to the way criminal law is normally done? If you've watched Law & Order you should know enough about how plea bargains are done in the regular courts.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Doesn't our legal system depend upon innocent people pleading guilty so that families can feel like someone has been punished?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
I'm glad you brought this up, because this is an interesting aspect of military justice that you don't see in the civilian courts, and I wanted to see how others would react to this.
Basically, you can't just plead guilty in the military court. The judge has an obligation to make sure that you are actually guilty regardless of your plea. What happened in this case is that Pvt. England plead guilty, and then her attorneys attempted to introduce mitigating evidence to try to get her a reduced sentence. The thing is, they crossed the line between mitigating evidence (circumstances that better explain why a person did something wrong) and exculpatory evidence (facts that make it appear that the person actually did not do anything wrong). Evidence was introduced that implied that she felt she was following a legitimate order, and that is a defense to a count to which she had plead guilty. The judge said that was not acceptable, and so he entered a not guilty plea on her behalf and now it will go to trial.
What do you think about that way of doing things as opposed to the way criminal law is normally done? If you've watched Law & Order you should know enough about how plea bargains are done in the regular courts.
I think this gives the judge an awful lot of discretionary power...power that can be abused very easily.
As much as we would like to trust the objectivity of judges, we have seen way too many judges with hidden (and not so hidden) agendas that can warp their decision making, either consciously or subconsciously.
I'm a bit leery of all of this...
_________________ cirlces they grow and they swallow people whole half their lives they say goodnight to wives they'll never know got a mind full of questions and a teacher in my soul and so it goes
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
genxgirl wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
I'm glad you brought this up, because this is an interesting aspect of military justice that you don't see in the civilian courts, and I wanted to see how others would react to this.
Basically, you can't just plead guilty in the military court. The judge has an obligation to make sure that you are actually guilty regardless of your plea. What happened in this case is that Pvt. England plead guilty, and then her attorneys attempted to introduce mitigating evidence to try to get her a reduced sentence. The thing is, they crossed the line between mitigating evidence (circumstances that better explain why a person did something wrong) and exculpatory evidence (facts that make it appear that the person actually did not do anything wrong). Evidence was introduced that implied that she felt she was following a legitimate order, and that is a defense to a count to which she had plead guilty. The judge said that was not acceptable, and so he entered a not guilty plea on her behalf and now it will go to trial.
What do you think about that way of doing things as opposed to the way criminal law is normally done? If you've watched Law & Order you should know enough about how plea bargains are done in the regular courts.
I think this gives the judge an awful lot of discretionary power...power that can be abused very easily.
As much as we would like to trust the objectivity of judges, we have seen way too many judges with hidden (and not so hidden) agendas that can warp their decision making, either consciously or subconsciously.
I'm a bit leery of all of this...
I don't worry much about judicial discretion, especially when it comes to the ability of a judge to find someone NOT guilty against their wishes. Contrary to what James Dobson would like us all to believe, there's not much abuse of judicial discretion going on out there, and the bad stuff is usually reversed on appeal.
I think this is an excellent way to conduct a criminal trial, and if it weren't for the fact that it would slow down our already overburdened civilian criminal courts to do it this way, I'd say it should be adopted nationally. I think there'd be a lot less underpriviledged young people in prison today if the judges had an obligation to confirm their guilt before they imposed a sentence on them.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
just_b wrote:
Doesn't our legal system depend upon innocent people pleading guilty so that families can feel like someone has been punished?
I hope you're being facetious.
Seriously, don't judges have to approve a plea bargains? I think if you read charges to a person, and they say that they did it (Did you talk to your lawyer about what that means? Yes. You understand that you have the right to plead not-guilty and we can do a whole trial with a jury and stuff? Yes.), how much do we want to baby them?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
just_b wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
just_b wrote:
Doesn't our legal system depend upon innocent people pleading guilty so that families can feel like someone has been punished?
I hope you're being facetious.
Seriously, don't judges have to approve a plea bargains? I think if you read charges to a person, and they say that they did it (Did you talk to your lawyer about what that means? Yes. You understand that you have the right to plead not-guilty and we can do a whole trial with a jury and stuff? Yes.), how much do we want to baby them?
In many places, the defendant is required to make an averment and confess to the charges in their own words. If the judge doesn't buy the story, he usually has the discretion to deny the guilty plea.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
In many places, the defendant is required to make an averment and confess to the charges in their own words. If the judge doesn't buy the story, he usually has the discretion to deny the guilty plea.
Obviously, I don't think that's a bad thing, but if you've got someone to attest that a person is capable and that person admits to the crime, and it fits the evidence. I'm OK with that too.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
just_b wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
In many places, the defendant is required to make an averment and confess to the charges in their own words. If the judge doesn't buy the story, he usually has the discretion to deny the guilty plea.
Obviously, I don't think that's a bad thing, but if you've got someone to attest that a person is capable and that person admits to the crime, and it fits the evidence. I'm OK with that too.
Right. But Pvt. England's plea didn't fit the evidence.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
just_b wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
In many places, the defendant is required to make an averment and confess to the charges in their own words. If the judge doesn't buy the story, he usually has the discretion to deny the guilty plea.
Obviously, I don't think that's a bad thing, but if you've got someone to attest that a person is capable and that person admits to the crime, and it fits the evidence. I'm OK with that too.
Right. But Pvt. England's plea didn't fit the evidence.
I didn't say they shouldn't switch the plea for Pvt. England. I don't disagree with you.
I thought your previous post was saying that it is much easier for a judge to make that determination in military court than in civilian courts. In civilian court, I think that if the admission obviously doesn't fit the evidence, the judge shouldn't except the plea, but I don't think it has to be beyond all doubt. Hell, if a person is copping a plea, they aren't getting the death penalty, they can always be set free later.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
just_b wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
just_b wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
In many places, the defendant is required to make an averment and confess to the charges in their own words. If the judge doesn't buy the story, he usually has the discretion to deny the guilty plea.
Obviously, I don't think that's a bad thing, but if you've got someone to attest that a person is capable and that person admits to the crime, and it fits the evidence. I'm OK with that too.
Right. But Pvt. England's plea didn't fit the evidence.
I didn't say they shouldn't switch the plea for Pvt. England. I don't disagree with you.
I thought your previous post was saying that it is much easier for a judge to make that determination in military court than in civilian courts. In civilian court, I think that if the admission obviously doesn't fit the evidence, the judge shouldn't except the plea, but I don't think it has to be beyond all doubt. Hell, if a person is copping a plea, they aren't getting the death penalty, they can always be set free later.
It's not so much that it's EASIER for the military judge. It's more that the military judge has a higher burden placed upon him to ensure that the evidence fits the plea. I don't know what the specific words of the laws or rules are on the subject, but I'd imagine that a civilian court would not throw out a guilty plea simply because a defendant didn't adequately pursue an available defense.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:58 pm Posts: 3567 Location: west side of washington state
genxgirl wrote:
She did not know that torturing prisoners was wrong?
Is she retarded (and I use this word in the true sense) and/or adjudicated incompetent so that the judge will not accept her guilty plea?
that reminded me of something I heard on the news:
Quote:
According to Amador, England did not speak until she was almost 8 years old. Diagnosed as "electively mute," she was placed in special education. Some thought she was autistic.
and
Quote:
But in Iraq, Amador said, England was manipulated by Graner. She began a sexual relationship with Graner in Iraq, and later became pregnant by him, Amador said. He said England began doing things she believed would please her lover.
"Graner took pictures of her — not only nude pictures of her — he took pictures of her having sex with him," said Amador. "He had another soldier who was older and outranked her take a camera and they had sex together while this soldier took a picture. She felt humiliated. She thought it was perverted. She felt it was wrong. So I asked her why she did it, and she said, 'I didn't want to lose him.' "
some of that may have influenced the judge in this decision. who knows.
Graner does sound like a prick-and-a-half, tho:
Quote:
Graner was convicted of abuse charges in January and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Although he is said to be the father of England's son, last month he married another Abu Ghraib defendant, former Spc. Megan Ambuhl. Ambuhl and three other members of the 372nd have pleaded guilty in the case.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
JamElizabeth wrote:
Graner does sound like a prick-and-a-half, tho:
Quote:
Graner was convicted of abuse charges in January and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Although he is said to be the father of England's son, last month he married another Abu Ghraib defendant, former Spc. Megan Ambuhl. Ambuhl and three other members of the 372nd have pleaded guilty in the case.
Wow. Isn't it amazing that ALL of the bad apples in the army ended up in this one unit at the same time?
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
