201206.22

Defense Motions for June 25th Hearing

The Defense has filed the following additional motions:

1) Defense Reply to Prosecution Response to Supplement to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery #2;
2) Defense Response to Prosecution Notice to Court of ONCIX Damage Assessment;
3) Defense Motion to Record and Transcribe All R.C.M. 802 Conferences.

The Defense has also filed several motions that we do not yet have authority to publish:

1) Addendum #2 to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery #2: Request for Witnesses: This motion requests authority to call witnesses. The Defense requested that the Court require the Government to produce a witness from the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to verify when the trial counsel had knowledge of relevant facts mentioned in our Compel Discovery #2 motion above.

2) Request for Reconsideration of Addendum #2 to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery #2: Request for Witnesses: This motion requested a reconsideration of the denial of the Defense’s request for ONCIX, FBI, and DHS witnesses.

3) Defense Targeted Brief on Absence of Harm: On March 29, 2012, the Government filed a motion to preclude the Defense from mentioning the lack of actual damage from the charged leaks during the merits portion of the trial. The Defense filed a brief opposing the Government’s motion on April 12, 2012. The Court heard oral argument on the issue during the April 24-26 Article 39(a) session, and took the matter under advisement. On June 6, 2012, the Court requested the parties provide more targeted briefs on the following: a) The potential uses of the “actual damage” information on the merits as indicated by the Defense in its Response Motion; b) Additional research on the example provided by the Defense regarding assault with a means likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm. The Court requested case law on the issue of “what actually happened” being relevant to “what could happen.”

Anonymous

23 June 2012 - 7:09

The following case-law research might be useful as an example of the element of causation regarding assault.

O’Connor’s Texas Causes of Action (2011), ch. 4-A, Assault—Infliction of Bodily Injury, pp. 38-39:
§2.3. Plaintiff’s injury. To prove an action for assault by infliction of bodily injury, the plaintiff must establish the defendant’s contact caused the plaintiff’s injury. See Prosser & Keeton on Torts §9.
1. Foreseeable result.
(1) Direct result. When the injury is the immediate and direct result of the assault, the plaintiff is not required to prove the injury was a foreseeable result of the assault.
(2) Consequential result. When the injury is a consequential result and is not directly and immediately caused by the assault, the plaintiff must prove the injuries were a reasonably foreseeable result of the assault. Pleasant Glade Assembly of God v. Schubert, 174 S.W.3d 388, 398; Johnson v. Johnson, 869 S.W.2d 490, 493. A defendant cannot be held responsible for remote injuries that could not have been reasonably anticipated as a probable result of her intentional act. Sitton v. American Title Co., 396 S.W.2d 899, 904 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.). A defendant’s reasonable anticipation cannot be established by mere conjecture, guess, or speculation. Pleasant Glade, 174 S.W.3d at 398.

Note: The high expertise and persistent diligence of PFC Manning's excellent legal defense team are getting beneficial results that strengthen the defense and undermine the prosecution. Your continuing admirable, commendable efforts and public information are greatly appreciated.

23 June 2012 - 7:08

At what time does the Hearing on June 25 start? How long might it last?