Posts Tagged With: John Henry Browne


Seattle-based
John Henry Browne is the civilian attorney representing
Staff Sergeant
Robert Bales, the U.S. soldier accused of murdering 17 Afghan
villagers. Attorney Browne wants to replace the military lawyer assigned
to the case. They are having serious disagreements over how to handle
the defense.
“You are fired, sorry, but we have much more experience than you,”
Attorney Browne, said to military lawyer Major Thomas Hurley. Major is
an experienced military lawyer. He has handled more than 60 military
courts-martial; three involved homicide charges; however, none were
capital cases.
The Army assigns defense counsel such as Hurley to soldiers facing
court martial but defendants also have the right to hire additional
civilian counsel. The military
assigned counsel is called the Detailed
Military counsel (DMC). The
hired civilian counsel is called the
Individual Military counsel (IMC).
“Major Hurley is not a team player and has no experience in murder
cases, we do,” Attorney Browne has said. “We have gotten 17 not guilty
verdicts in murder cases and have gotten life verdicts in all our death
penalty cases.”
Browne unleashed a unilateral public attack on the way U.S.
prosecutors are handling the investigation into the shooting and accused
U.S. authorities of blocking access to potential witnesses. There is
also disagreement over the decision to put Bales’ wife on the television
talk show circuit.
Major Hurley believes making public statement on television before
the trial “limit our options at trial or expose important witnesses to
effective cross-examination that they would otherwise not have to face”.
I (LCDR London Steverson, USCG (Ret)), faced similar situations when I was a retired officer Coast Guard
Law Specialist representing Coast Guard members in Coast Guard Base New
York in courts-martial. However, I never had to assert my authority as
lead counsel, Individual Military Counsel (IMC). The Coast Guard always
detailed the most junior and inexperienced military counsel to the
members that I represented. They were only qualified to carry my brief
case and take notes, and they knew it. They were content to observe and
listen and sometimes offer a helpful comment. I had just retired, I knew
the
Uniform Code of Military Justice; I knew the accused; and I knew the judges and all of the members of the
Prosecution
team; so, I was better qualified to represent the accused. And the
military counsels knew this, so , they never challenged my decisions in
conducting the defense of the accused.
In the case of the
Coast Guard Academy
court-martial of
Cadet Webster Smith there was similar tension and
disagreement between CDR Merle Smith, (IMC) and LT Stuart Kirkby, (DMC).
LT Kirkby was not even a Coast Guard Law Specialist. He was a Navy
Judge Advocate General from the Naval Submarine Base at
Groton, CT..
There was serious tension between CDR Smith and LT Kirkby. The
tension and friction became so acute that it required several emergency
sessions with the parents of Cadet Webster Smith to settle the issues.
(THIS SUBJECT WILL BE TREATED IN DETAIL IN MY NEXT BOOK, THE SEQUEL TO
CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady)
There were disagreements about who to put on the witness list, who to call as a witness, who wouldl make the
Opening Statement, who wouldl make the
Closing Argument,
who would argue which motion, which motions to bring, who wouldl
examine which witnesses, who would make objections to statement and
questions by the Prosecution, whether to give interviews to the news
media, which questions to ask which witness; and , the biggest issue of
all, whether to put
the Accused,
Webster Smith, on the witness stand. That is always a crucial
decision.
In the Webster Smith Case, it may have been the one issue
decided the final verdict in the case.
http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-ebook/dp/B006VPAADK
This review is from: CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and Lady (Kindle Edition)
CONDUCT UNBECOMING an Officer and a Lady: The Case of Cadet Webster Smith. A Review.
I read this book. Judge London Steverson, the author, a 1968 Coast
Guard Academy graduate, and retiree, did an outstanding job of parsing
the facts of what is arguably a judicial tragedy.
According to the book, leaders at the Coast Guard Academy failed to
follow the recommendation of the investigating officer, which was not to
prosecute the accused of sexual assault, among other allegations,
because evidence of the alleged crimes seemed insufficient; failed to
follow procedures in responding to the defendant’s Article 138 claim and
failed to allow the defendant the customary grace period before
reporting for confinement. There are a few other apparent missteps–like
failing to instruct the jury that the defense does not have a burden of
proof in criminal cases–that are capably documented in the book. Rather,
according to the author, the Coast Guard Academy leadership chose to
prosecute on the recommendation of a staff attorney in spite of the
recommendation of the investigating officer the leadership appointed.
As for the defendant, some of his alleged conduct could, conceivably,
call into question his judgment and discretion. To that end, he seemed
to overlook a common, conspiratorial axiom: “There is no honor among
thieves.” As it relates to discretion, at his age he may not have heard
the axiom, “Loose lips sink ships.” The defendant was popular and
athletic according to the book. These are traits that some others
usually find attractive. Judge Steverson details how these traits
attracted several cadets to the defendant. Consequently, one of the
attractees had a mishap that directly involved the defendant and the two
entered into a secret pact not to reveal the mishap because it could
have an impact on both of their lives as cadets. Well, the defendant’s
second error seemed one of indiscretion because this particular
attractee subsequently got wind of the tale involving the shared secret
and turned her apparent affection into unabated vengeance. Not only did
she turn to vengeance towards the once popular, now vilified athlete,
but another five or six attractees also seemed to act in concert,
according to the text. According to the author’s account. All it took to
convict the defendant was the allegations of sexual assault among other
allegations.
The gist of the book is the author’s plea to the Coast Guard to live
up to the Constitution that its members, including the Court Martial’s
convening authority and the defendant, swore to uphold and protect. He
pleads with Coast Guard Academy leadership not to substitute their
personal feelings of how they think the world should operate for
justice. The author asks them to remain faithful to this nation’s
long-standing creed of “Equal protection under the law.” Finally, the
author pleads with the Coast Guard Academy leadership to adhere to
established legal procedures. Rather than answer the author’s pleas to
uphold and protect the Constitution, ensure equal protection under the
law and adhere to established legal procedures, the author asserts the
Coast Guard seemed to want to send a message to this cadet. Why this
cadet? We may never know. He was talented, athletic and popular, but it
is fairly certain most cadets are talented and athletic, even if not
popular. Perhaps, the timing was wrong; perhaps the Coast Guard thought
it was time to address the issue of sexual assault at the Coast Guard
Academy or was it just bad timing for this cadet? That this cadet was
the first cadet in Coast Guard history to be court martialed and had a
distinguishable ethnicity is germane. Wrong place? Wrong time? You
decide.
The author gives you a lot to work with. It is readily apparent the
esteemed author thoroughly researched this matter and presented
exhaustive explanations of law and fact. Transcripts of the legal
proceedings are provided in the appendixes. This book is recommended to
anyone interested in military legal proceedings or simple justice. The
author’s assertion that this case will live in infamy does not seem like
an exaggeration. Only time will tell if it is the Coast Guard Academy’s
or the defendant’s infamy.
