201204.21

Latest Defense Motions

by David Coombs in Manning Case

The Defense filed the following two motions with the Court:

1) Defense Reply to Prosecution Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss all Charges with Prejudice; and

2) Defense Reply to Prosecution Response to Defense Request for Partial Reconsideration of Discovery Ruling

Each of these motions will be argued during the next hearing on 24 – 26 April 2012.

Comments (4)

Anonymous
27 April 2012 - 5:20

Mr.Coombs my name is Jeffery Mullins and I used to be in the military and I support Bradley Manning.Tell our government they have no right to blackout anything in these motions.We as American citizens have the right to know everything.Tell them by blacking out parts only prove they are hiding things.The American people already know Bradley didn't help the enemy directly or indirectly,this is why they won't let you have any evidence,it proves Bradley didn't help the enemy in anyway.Tell this judge to remember they took an oath as well.Tell all those trying to prosecute Bradley they disgrace their own country and their people.The ones who committed war crimes got a smack on the hand,Bradley should be pardoned for doing the lesser crime,he didn't kill innocent people.They're trying to use him as an example,but all the American citizens are seeing is how corrupt our government is,let them know this.Let our government also know because of this people are telling their kids not to sign up in the military,and remind them if they try to start drafting people,they're just going to be putting weapons in the hands of people who hate them for drafting them into the military.Those people will turn on those who drafted them,I would if I were in their place and didn't want to be in the military.Recruitment is down because of this case already.Since the prosecutor doesn't want you to have any evidence,can't you use files from Wikileaks as evidence,those files should be the same ones the prosecutor has,they should prove Bradley didn't help the enemy.The American people already know there was no harm done by leaking these files.Mr.Coombs if you are really trying to help Bradley don't let the government railroad him.I know you talk to the judge and prosecutor in private I know what goes on behind those doors.Please don't let them do this to him,get them to understand there's no need to make an example out of him any more.The people get the message already,there's no point in destroying a young mans life.Ask everybody in the court room how they would feel it if this was one of their kids getting railroaded.Save his life.
Anonymous
27 April 2012 - 5:20

I think you are doing an excellent job as defense lawyer for Bradley Manning. I am not a lawyer, but I found the following that you probably know about in Model Rules.

O’Connor’s Texas Rules: Civil Trials (2011)
Ch. 6-A, §23 Spoliation, p. 403; §23.2 Requesting relief, p. 405:
2. Sanctions. (1). Exclusion of evidence. The court can exclude evidence only when the producing party attempts to admit evidence or testimony related to the destroyed evidence.
(2) Death-penalty sanctions. The court can strike the producing party’s pleadings and impose death-penalty sanctions in extraordinary cases. Courts can dismiss a case when the spoliator’s conduct was egregious, the prejudice to the other party was great, and lesser sanctions would not cure the prejudice. See “Death-penalty sanctions,” ch. 5-J, §3.2, pp. 333-34.
Chapter 5. Pretrial Motions, J. Motion for Sanctions, §3.2 Death-penalty sanctions. A death-penalty sanction is one that has the effect of adjudicating the dispute without regard to the merits. Death-penalty sanctions should be imposed only in exceptional cases when they are clearly justified and it is apparent that no lesser sanctions would promote compliance with the rules. Death-penalty sanctions include dismissal, default judgment excluding evidence, and jury instructions resolving fact issues in favor of one party. Courts use a four-part test to determine whether death-penalty sanctions are appropriate.
1. Direct relationship.
2. Necessary severity.
3. Lesser sanction first.
(1) Typical misconduct.
(2) Egregious misconduct. In case of egregious misconduct (e.g., violation of earlier court order, blatant disregard for discovery process), the court is not required to use a lesser sanction before imposing death-penalty sanctions ….
4. No merit. For death-penalty sanctions to be appropriate, the party’s conduct must justify the presumption that its claims or defenses lack merit.
T.B. Grindley-Ferris
27 April 2012 - 5:19

How can one possibly assess the Motion to dismiss when one finds whole paragraphs 'blacked out' therein?

Who has 'blacked them out' and why? This seems downright sinister!

grindleyferris@gmail.com
Barbara Williams
27 April 2012 - 5:18

Time to rally round a brave heart. One of the few left in America today. FREE BRADLEY MANNING! I AM BRADLEY MANNING!

Barbara/founder/dtdn.net http://www.RumbleofthePeople.com http://www.TheBridgeToNoWhere.org