We can raise it, but the CA will not move the trial. Doesn't have to. Solution is for the CA to appoint RDC East or Pacific as Haditha detailing authority. Non-issue. Anyone can be a "detailing authority." Doesn't even have to be an RDC. Before 1984, CA's detailed defense counsel and their fitreps were written by the SJA.
Neal A. Puckett, Esq LtCol, USMC (Ret) Puckett & Faraj, PC 1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at 703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately without reading or making any copy or distribution.
On Aug 21, 2011, at 9:03 PM, Haytham Faraj wrote: Then we have to move venues. He was a prosecutor who is now in charge of our detailed counsel. That doesn't pass the smell test, especially in light of the fact that he was there when they alleged ethical violations against me and Colby. I'd rather do this on the east coast anyway. I guess it's time to raise a new issue. Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPad
He took Tafoya's place as RDC West a couple of months ago.
Semper Fi,
DHS
How can atterbury be an RDC?
Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone
Neal,
I think any COA is neutral in terms of effect on legal issues.
Having SSgt Wuterich agree to release her would be consistent with his
position that Vokey is special and no one else brings to the table what he
would. The identity of the non-Vokey detailed defense counsel is
irrelevant; Vokey is irreplaceable, so it doesn't matter who the government
tried to replace him with.
OH!!! Something just occurred to me, leading me to erase a lot of
what I had just typed. Question: if Marshall were to be relieved
WHO WOULD DETAIL HER REPLACEMENT??? Paul Atterbury is now the RDC West
-- would he be conflicted? His boss is Col Baker, who I believe is
conflicted. Severing with Marshall may create the net plus of creating
new difficulties for the government trying to come up with a non-conflicted
individual to detail a new counsel.
Semper Fi,
DHS
Dwight,
Good Sunday to you!
Maj Marshall called me yesterday to tell me she's on the short list
to deploy as an RCT SJA in Afghanistan for 7 months, beginning in late
Sep.
She owes "availability" information tomorrow. She's in conflict
because she wants to go for all of the obvious reasons, but senses that if
she lists "U.S. v. Wuterich" as one of her current obligations, she'll be
off the list.
Reading between her lines, I know she wants to go and would not be
disappointed to be released by SSgt Wuterich. Haytham and I
discussed this last night but I want to get your take. Here are some
COAs
COA 1: Release Maj Marshall, thus requiring the gov't to
appoint a new detailed counsel.
Possible
advantages: Delay while new counsel gets up to speed (Judge Jones
said he's give us all the time we need), which could easily take six
months, depending on how many other cases he/she had and how experienced
he/she is.
Possible
disadvantage: Waiving any concern that the loss of Maj M hurt us
(not sure this is a real concern).
COA 2: Do nothing.
Possible
advantage: Good help on the case, though I doubt she's even read the
entire investigation
Possible
disadvantage: Not leveraging this assignment to buy some delay, all
of which helps us tactically
Can we get your thoughts?
What do you think is our best tactical move vis-a-vis Maj M?
S/f,
Neal
Neal A. Puckett,
Esq
LtCol, USMC
(Ret)
Puckett &
Faraj, PC
1800 Diagonal
Rd, Suite 210
Alexandria, VA
22314
703.706.9566
The information contained in this electronic
message is confidential, and is intended for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
you are hereby notified that any use, distribution, copying of disclosure
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please notify Puckett & Faraj, P.C. at
703-706-9566 or via a return the e-mail to
sender. You are required to purge this E-mail immediately
without reading or making any copy or
distribution. =
|