You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq-Jordan
Lynndie England Plans to Fight Abu Ghraib Charges
2005-09-20
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - Four months after she tried without success to plead guilty, Army Pfc. Lynndie England plans to fight charges she played a key role in abusing detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, her lawyer said. The 22-year-old reservist, who appeared in several graphic photos taken inside Abu Ghraib in 2003, goes on trial here this week on two counts of conspiracy, four counts of mistreating prisoners and one count of committing an indecent act. She will be the last of a group of junior enlisted soldiers charged with abuses at the notorious prison to have their cases resolved. Two have been convicted at trial, while six others made plea deals and received prison sentences of up to eight years. Most were members of the Maryland-based 372nd Military Police Company.

A final hearing is scheduled Tuesday to resolve any last-minute motions, with jury selection and opening statements to follow on Wednesday. The trial is expected to conclude by the end of September.
In May, England entered into a plea agreement that eventually fell apart, but this time around "there's not going to be a deal," said Capt. Jonathan Crisp, her lead defense lawyer. Crisp said he plans to base much of his defense on England's history of mental health problems that date back to her early childhood.

He said he also will focus on the influence exerted over England by Pvt. Charles Graner, the reputed abuse ringleader. Graner, who England has said fathered her young son while they were deployed, is serving a 10-year sentence after being convicted at trial in January. "I wouldn't say it's 'Blame Graner,'" Crisp said of his trial strategy, which includes calling Graner as a witness. "But certainly Graner is involved as far as what was going on."

In her attempted plea deal, England pleaded guilty to all of the same counts she faces this week in exchange for an undisclosed sentencing cap. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 11 years. But judge Col. James Pohl abruptly threw out the deal and declared a mistrial during the sentencing phase when testimony by Graner contradicted England's guilty plea. Prosecutors, who declined to talk about the trial, are expected to rely on the photos that have made England the scandal's most recognizable figure. In one photo, she is seen holding a prisoner on a leash.

A ruling by Pohl in July, however, tossed out a key piece of the prosecution's case - statements to Army investigators in which England implicated herself in the abuse. The judge said that he believed England did not fully understand the consequences when she waived her rights against self-incrimination before speaking to the investigators in January 2004.
Posted by:Steve

#4  As I recall, England didn't report directly to Graner, and England's immediate superior officer(s) had directly ordered her to stay away from him. But she snuck out at night to play anyway. I don't see what kind of defence she can work up to make that information go away, regardless who led the games.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-09-20 19:34  

#3  Only a true whacko would try to fight charges when they have sufficient evidence on film. Unless they draft the entire ACLU/DNC.MoveOn staff I can’t think of a military jury that will see her side of the story and exonerate her. But hey she might be able to squirt some tears and get some sympathy from a military court.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-09-20 12:18  

#2  Remember not to compare this too closely to a civilian trial. The purpose of the military justice system is primarily to "maintain good order and discipline in the military".

This means the entire system is weighted less towards what you would expect in a civilian court, and more to what a typical soldier expects and demands from military discipline. Homicide is not the worst offense, often getting less punishment than desertion at times, and sometimes garnering less prison time than something like forced homosexual sodomy.

Morality and timing are far more important--offenses are very situational.

Were I her defense attorney, my arguments would be threefold. First that there had been "a breakdown in her NCO chain of command", a strongly mitigating circumstance to any enlisted personnel on her jury.

Second, that she had no training in how to deal with prisoners of war, and that "non-military personnel" were directing and interfering with enlisted people in the prison. This would appeal to officers in a way similar to the NCOs.

Third would be a purely emotional pitch based on the fact that she is a new single mother, tied in with her no longer being of any value or detriment to the military, not impacting in any way on the morale of our forces, or even that of our allies or enemies. Her exoneration and dismissal will simply return her from whence she came, instead of incurring additional expense to the military in a waste of food and a wool blanket.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2005-09-20 11:51  

#1  Didn't fully understand the consequences of waiving her right against self-incrimination? Uh, it's of course possible (anything is) but sure as hell not likely. She hoped to come clean, spread the blame and dodge catching hell by talking about it to authorities after being caught. Alot of folks think it's like when they were little kids - authorities will simply forget about it and leave them be with a little tonguelashing. Doesn't work that way though despite the unreasonable expectations and foolish hopes.
Posted by: MunkarKat   2005-09-20 09:41  

00:00