July 31, 2013
"Sentencing Bradley Manning: He could get 100 years, he could get none"
The title of this post is the headline of this notable new article in the Christian Science Monitor about a notable upcoming sentencing of a notable criminal offender. Here are excerpts:
As the trial of Pfc. Bradley Manning begins its sentencing phase Wednesday, the prosecution will attempt to show that the documents he released gravely damaged national security.
At the same time, the defense will make the case that the perhaps the government was embarrassed by Private Manning’s disclosures, but they did not cause the catastrophic harm to national security that the Obama administration initially claimed....
“They are going to try to show that nothing he did ultimately harmed the country,” says Richard Rosen, former commandant of the US Army’s Judge Advocate General’s School and currently the director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University School of Law in Lubbock. The bulk of this sort of evidence could not be introduced before the judge rendered its verdict, because it could be deemed prejudicial or irrelevant, but in the sentencing phase of the proceedings, “The rules of evidence are relaxed,” Mr. Rosen adds....
The key for Manning will be providing mitigating evidence – “factors that may sway the judge to grant him a lesser sentence,” Rosen says. “This may be family problems or that people persecuted him because of his sexual preferences.”
The sentencing phase will be extensive and may last for weeks. Although Manning was acquitted of “aiding the enemy,” which would have carried with it a life sentence without the possibility of parole, he has been found guilty of crimes that generally impose decade-long sentences each, which could quickly add up. “It’s going to accumulate quite a few years,” Rosen says. “We’re probably talking nearly 100 years – we’re talking a lot of years.”
“We’re not celebrating,” defense attorney David Coombs said. “Ultimately, his sentence is all that really matters.”
Once Col. Denise Lind, the presiding judge, renders her verdict, Manning’s case will automatically go to what is known as the “convening authority,” a general who, if he so desired, could overturn the verdict.
The powers of the convening authority have been called into question over recent months, when they have twice thrown out sexual assault convictions rendered by military juries. Though unlikely to happen, the general who is serving as the “convening authority” in the Manning trial – as with the sexual assault cases that caused so much controversy – could dismiss the conviction, known as “setting aside” the verdict.
What the general cannot do is provide a harsher sentence than Colonel Lind has already given to Manning. “He can give further clemency if he wants, he can lessen the sentence, or he can set aside the findings,” Rosen explains.
If the convening authority declines to change the sentence, Manning’s defense team can also seek clemency through the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Beyond that, they could take the Manning case all the way to the US Supreme Court, likely by arguing that the US government violated Manning’s constitutional rights.
That will be a tough case to make. “I can’t think of a time when the Supreme Court has overruled a court of appeals for the Armed Forces,” Rosen says. “They don’t like to second-guess the judgments of the military courts.”
In the meantime, the defense will seek to ensure that Manning gets credit for the jail time he has already served – three years – and perhaps more by arguing that he was mistreated in pretrial confinement by being put in solitary confinement and being stripped naked.
For this, “He’ll try to seek additional credit – in other words, not a one-to-one reduction in jail time, but, say 10 to 1 – in other words, 10 days for every day he was mistreated,” Rosen says. “It’s going to be long and involved,” he adds. “It doesn’t end here.”
July 31, 2013 at 07:08 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Sentencing Bradley Manning: He could get 100 years, he could get none":
A system in which a convicted defendant "could get 100 years, [or] he could get none" is a scandal. The idea that a judge should have that much do-what-you-please discretion over someone's life is astonishing. I could understand if this were some story out of North Korea, where there is nothing recognizable as law, and only the dictator's will to tell the tale.
In a country governed by law instead of will, defendants and the public have a right to at least a rough idea of what the punishment for criminal offenses is going to be.
Bring back mandatory guidelines, including in the military.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Aug 1, 2013 9:08:27 AM
As Congress has continually demonstrated that they are the POS that everyone knows they are and makes fun of and are incapable of passing gas in unison, much less setting meaningful, mandatory punitive guidelines, I recommend 89 days and for the time already served in excess of that, $1,000.00/day be awarded.
Posted by: albeed | Aug 1, 2013 10:24:21 AM