Search results

What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.

However, by the time the Navy-Marine Corps Court Trial Judiciary rendered a judgment, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCTJ ruled that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of “unlawful command influence”. According to the NMCTJ, the presence of someone with Ewers’ reputation, who had strong views regarding Chessani’s guilt, could have influenced the prosecutor and legal advisers. Therefore, charges against him were dismissed.

What happened after a makeshift bomb ended the life of a US Navy Marines Corporal near the village of Haditha on 19 November 2005? After increasing media attention, the US army launched an investigation and charged eight marines, as raids against the population of Haditha allegedly resulted in the death of 24 civilians. Proceedings were initiated against Jeffrey Chessani, a commander who had not been present during the explosion and its aftermath, but had allegedly failed to adequately report and investigate the incident.

However, by the time the case reached the Navy-Marines Corps of Criminal Appeals, the legal question did not revolve around Chessani’s role during the incidents, but around the question whether there was an appearance of unacceptable influence on the case by Colonel Ewers, an important figure in military legal circles. The NMCCA confirmed the previous ruling by the Trial Judiciary, stating that the US government had failed in refuting the appearance of ‘unlawful command influence’. According to the NMCCA, the government had only attempted to disprove that Ewers directly influenced key figures in the circle of the prosecutor, while not addressing whether the prosecution’s legal advisors might have been influenced by Ewers. 

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution.

In November 2009, Ghailani’s lawyers filed a motion for dismissal of the case of his case arguing that the nearly five years that Ghailani spent in secret CIA prisons and at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.

In July 2010, the District Court found that Ghailani’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated becase, considering all circumstances, the delay did not infringe upon any interest protected by this constitutional right.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was arrested in July 2004 in Pakistan and transferred to the US Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay (Cuba) in September 2006. He was charged with terrorism and war crimes (among other charges) in connection with the 1998 attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In June 2009, Ghailani became the first prisoner of Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to the United States for prosecution. On 17 November 2010, Ghailani was found guilty conspiring to destroy property and buildings of the United States and acquitted of all other charges.

Ghailani’s defense lawyers filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, or in the alternative, for a new trial, arguing that in the light of the acquittals, it was inconsistent to enter a finding of guilt with respect to one count.

The District Court disagreed, finding that there is no requirement of consistency of verdicts. It also rejected the argument in the alternative, holding that the conviction was not a manifest injustice (which could give rise to a new trial).

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is a Nigerian national who was accused of attempting to set off an explosive device on a plane travelling from Amsterdam (the Netherlands) to Detroit, Michigan (the United States of America) on 25 December 2009. 

In an indictment filed before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, prosecutors charged Abdulmutallab with eight counts, including conspiracy to commit terrorism. Abdulmatallab pleaded guilty on 21 October 2011 to all counts, including conspiracy to commit terrorism. On 16 February 2012, the District Court sentenced him to life imprisonment for four counts (including conspiracy to commit terrorism), and an additional 50 years for the remaining counts.