Court denies Fort Hood suspect access to evidence

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Court denies Fort Hood suspect access to evidence
| July 11, 2013 | Updated: July 11, 2013 5:31pm

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, cannot access evidence obtained through secret electronic surveillance, a federal appeals court ruled.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans also denied Maj. Nidal Hasan's motion to suppress the evidence the government plans to use against him. The court's decision Wednesday upheld a lower court's ruling issued before Hasan recently began serving as his own attorney.

Hasan faces execution or life without parole if convicted in the 2009 rampage that left 13 dead and nearly three dozen wounded on the Texas Army post. Jury selection in his court-martial started Tuesday at Fort Hood, and testimony in the trial is to start Aug. 3.

In his motion, Hasan's attorneys had argued that without access to the evidence obtained through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, his legal rights would be violated. But the appeals court said "it cannot be said that this exclusion rises to the level of a constitutional violation." The ruling said every appeals court that has considered a constitutional challenge to FISA has upheld the statute.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Court-denies-Fort-Hood-suspect-access-to-evidence-4659681.php

[Th1onein]

1. Secret courts, secret trials, secret prisons,

secret laws, secret rulings, secret interpretations of laws, and now secret evidence.

We have lost our nation.

[cstanleytech]

4. This isnt your typical criminal case being heard in a civlian court its a military case

being heard in a military court thus there are somewhat different rules.

[Th1onein]

5. It does not matter.

It is against the principals that this nation was founded upon

How are you supposed to get a fair trial and defend yourself if you can't even know the evidence presented against you?

Uh uh. Doesn't fly.

[cstanleytech]

8. No, it does matter.

Military law is military law if it wasnt then this guy would be on trial in a civilian court not a military court where somewhat different rules apply where as Snowden if he is ever arrested and extradited to the US wont face a military trial but rather a civilian one because he is not in the military.

[Th1onein]

11. You are mistaken about military law then.

The rules of evidence for military courts don't differ from those of civil courts. The accused still has the right to know the evidence against them. Period.

[bike man]

10. How could one defend oneself after killing/wounding that many people. With witnesses. And captured

with weapons. What would the defense be, he was having a bad day?

[Katashi_itto]

2. That doesnt bode well. I don't care if he is a mass murdering scumbag

That legal move sets a bad precedent

[ManiacJoe]

3. Is the "denied access" really pretrial access?

Ultimately, if the prosecution is going to present the evidence, access will be available at that time.

[blkmusclmachine]

6. .

.

[Lurks Often]

7. Is the evidence even relevant to the case?

Did Hasan kill 13 people and wound 36 more, yes, that is not in dispute.

So either he is a murderer or he swore a false oath and wore a US uniform when he killed those people, which would make a spy under the Geneva Conventions and spies can be executed.

[bike man]

9. Surely he is aware that he shot folks. Why can he not simply admit his guilt and save the

trouble of a trial.

[Robb]

12. If you blink, you miss that this is just a stunt by the defense.

It's unclear from the way the article is written, however: whatever FISA-related evidence may have been gathered on Hasan, the prosecution is not using it in the trial. His attorney has full access to the evidence the prosecution is bringing.

Hasan's attorneys' claim was that there might be something in there that would exonerate him; they obviously have no way of knowing if this is true, or that any such evidence exists.