Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)AFTER Close of Evidence, Judge in Manning Trial Allows Feds to Change Charges [View all]
Two years ago, Army PFC Bradley Manning was charged with five counts of stealing government property, in violation of federal statute 18 U.S.C. 641. He faces 21 total charges for providing WikiLeaks with classified information at the court martial entering its final stage. After the Government rested its case against PFC Manning, defense lawyer David Coombs detailed how the evidence presented did not support those five 18 U.S.C. 641 charges. He appealed to military judge Col. Denise Lind to dismiss them outright; however, she let them stand. Shockingly, she then stepped away from her role as the finder of fact, and into a clearly partisan role by allowing the Government to significantly alter its charges on July 24, 2013long after all legal arguments had been made.
Because all of these critical clarifications are coming after eight weeks of testimony, and because these offenses carry with them 50 years of potential imprisonment, and because the Defense was actually misled by the Charge Sheet, the Defense requests that this Court declare a mistrial as to the section 641 offenses, declared Coombs.
This move by Judge Lind allowed the prosecution to switch its theory, alleging now that Manning stole portion[s] of databases instead of the entire databases themselves. The change is for the Iraq and Afghan War Logs and the Global Address List. The evidence clearly shows that Manning downloaded Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Activity reports (SigActs), not the entire Combined Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE) databases, which included far more and far more sensitive documents.
* * * * *
Because all of these critical clarifications are coming after eight weeks of testimony, and because these offenses carry with them 50 years of potential imprisonment, and because the Defense was actually misled by the Charge Sheet, the Defense requests that this Court declare a mistrial as to the section 641 offenses, declared Coombs.
This move by Judge Lind allowed the prosecution to switch its theory, alleging now that Manning stole portion[s] of databases instead of the entire databases themselves. The change is for the Iraq and Afghan War Logs and the Global Address List. The evidence clearly shows that Manning downloaded Iraq and Afghanistan Significant Activity reports (SigActs), not the entire Combined Information Data Network Exchange (CIDNE) databases, which included far more and far more sensitive documents.
* * * * *
{Manning's attorney argues,} Now, after the close of evidence, the Court has grafted onto the Charge Sheet the word information something that the Defense did not know it had to defend against until after it had cross-examined Government witnesses and after it had called its own witnesses. In short, the Defense did not know of the case to meet until 24 July 2013, almost two months into the trial, and the day before closing arguments. The Defense is now left to hope that the Government has not presented enough evidence to prove a charge that the Defense did not actually defend against and it does not believe the Government actually charged. . . . If the Defense had known that when the Government charged databases, it really meant information, the Defense would have defended this case very differently.
Much more at http://www.bradleymanning.org/featured/manning-judge-alters-charges-to-assist-govt-ahead-of-verdict .
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
35 replies, 3080 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (62)
ReplyReply to this post
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AFTER Close of Evidence, Judge in Manning Trial Allows Feds to Change Charges [View all]
snot
Jul 2013
OP
And people wonder why Whistle Blowers are leaving the country and seeking political
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#4
Yet we have people right in this forum calling for Edward Snowden to return and face the music.
totodeinhere
Jul 2013
#25
Why would that matter? If I were to go online and somehow access (say)
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#18
The government only has to clear a $1000 hurdle. If you value the documents
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#21