| "Draft" ruling from Judge Jones along with a little attitude. FYI, Haytham scheduled contingency hearings in cases in the event that Wuterich didn't go on schedule for any reason. Those other cases were not "hard docketed." But the fact that they're on a docket is making the judge mad at Haytham, I'm thinkin'. That may require a challenge of the MJ. 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 888-970-0005 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. Begin forwarded message: From: "Jones LtCol David M" <david.m.jones5@usmc.mil> Date: October 26, 2010 6:46:28 PM EDT To: "Gannon Maj Nicholas L" <nicholas.gannon@usmc.mil>, "Haytham Faraj" <haytham@puckettfaraj.com> Cc: "Neal Puckett" <neal@puckettfaraj.com>, "Marshall Maj Meridith L" <meridith.marshall@usmc.mil>, "Brower Capt Matthew R" <matthew.r.brower@usmc.mil>, "Rubin LtCol Peter R" <peter.rubin@usmc.mil> Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion Counsel, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are not official until they are read into the record of trial, and can further be added to / changed at any time prior to authentication for accuracy. However, for your planning purposes, and in light of the Stay filed by the defense, I am attaching a "rough" of my ruling for your assistance. I anticipate going to trial next Tuesday, the 2nd of November. I expect all parties to be there unless the Stay that has been granted. Major Gannon, please set up an 802 for this case for. I understand from Judge Rubin that Mr. Faraj has scheduled Brito and Vega to go next week. I would like to know why. R, LtCol David M. Jones Military Judge Western Pacific Judicial Circuit Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Office: 645-7287 / 2156 Fax: 645-2035 From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156 -----Original Message----- From: Gannon Maj Nicholas L Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 1:09 To: Jones LtCol David M; 'Haytham Faraj' Cc: 'Neal Puckett'; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion Your Honor, After discussing this issue with the defense, government agrees, we will not need an Article 39a session on 11 and 12 October 2010. My recollection is that our plan is to have the Members seated at 1200 on 2 November 2010. We will voir dire the Members on 2 November. We will start with opening statements and evidentiary presentation at 0830 on 3 November 2010, unless Member selection is completed before 1500 on 2 November 2010. Is this correct Your Honor? Very respectfully, Major Gannon -----Original Message----- From: Jones LtCol David M Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:15 To: Haytham Faraj Cc: 'Neal Puckett'; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R; Gannon Maj Nicholas L Subject: RE: Update on UCI Motion All, This means that we do not need any session on 11 and 12 October and that the next session of court will be at 0830 on 2 November. Members to arrive at 1200. Are both parties agreed? R, LtCol David M. Jones Military Judge Western Pacific Judicial Circuit Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Office: 645-7287 / 2156 Fax: 645-2035 From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156 -----Original Message----- From: Haytham Faraj [mailto:haytham@puckettfaraj.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 21:09 To: Jones LtCol David M Cc: 'Neal Puckett'; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R; Gannon Maj Nicholas L Subject: Update on UCI Motion Your honor, We are providing notice that the defense will not be filing a UCI motion. Vr, Haytham Faraj, Esq. PUCKETT & FARAJ, PC _______________________ WASHINGTON DC METRO 1800 Diagonal Road Suite 210 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-706-0442 Phone DETROIT METRO 6200 Schaefer Road Suite 202 Dearborn, MI 48126 313-457-1390 Phone 202-280-1039 Fax www.puckettfaraj.com 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 888-970-0005 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. -----Original Message----- From: Jones LtCol David M [mailto:david.m.jones5@usmc.mil] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 7:20 AM To: Gannon Maj Nicholas L Cc: Haytham Faraj; Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R Subject: RE: Additional Evidence ICO U.S. v. Wuterich In receipt, thank you. R, LtCol David M. Jones Military Judge Western Pacific Judicial Circuit Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Office: 645-7287 / 2156 Fax: 645-2035 From the U.S.: 81-611-745-7287 / 2156 -----Original Message----- From: Gannon Maj Nicholas L Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:34 To: Jones LtCol David M Cc: Haytham Faraj; Neal Puckett; Marshall Maj Meridith L; Brower Capt Matthew R Subject: Additional Evidence ICO U.S. v. Wuterich Your Honor, The government respectfully requests that the Court consider the following additional evidence in the case of U.S. v. Wuterich, specifically, on the defense motion to dismiss of 26 August 2010 ("Hutchins Motion"). I have attached General Mattis' testimony from our previous 39a Session in March 2010. Specifically, the government respectfully requests that the Court consider the following cross-examination questions of General Mattis: The is from pages 37-38 of the attached transcript: "Questions by the defense (continued): Q. General, you have gone to great lengths as a convening authority in these cases and in the Hamdaniyah cases to ensure, as you put it, to be the convening authority for both the prosecution and the defense? A. Exactly. Q. In fact, I personally remember you calling me once and making sure -- when I was still in uniform -- that I had everything I needed as a defense counsel. A. [The witness nods head in the affirmative.] Q. I got a personal call from you and you asked if I had everything I needed. And so you were going to great lengths to make sure that the process was fair? A. I did my best. Q. Is that a fair -- A. Yes." Very respectfully, Maj Gannon |
Attachment:
Wuterich - FoF for Counsel Motion.doc
Description: MS-Word document