8/23 Session #7: Accord on Motions to Compel
We pick up with a quick clarifying point about vicarious liability: the idea, the military judge confirms with the Chief Prosecutor, is that the jury must find that a substantive offenses was committed, before holding the accused liable under a co-conspirator theory? Right, answers Martins.
And then J. Connell III moves to compel. Indeed, he has so moved in two particular instances, which he rises to discuss now with the military judge. The first of the pair is AE160, Connell’s bid to protect details of defense team payments from the prosecution’s eyes.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
We pick up with a quick clarifying point about vicarious liability: the idea, the military judge confirms with the Chief Prosecutor, is that the jury must find that a substantive offenses was committed, before holding the accused liable under a co-conspirator theory? Right, answers Martins.
And then J. Connell III moves to compel. Indeed, he has so moved in two particular instances, which he rises to discuss now with the military judge. The first of the pair is AE160, Connell’s bid to protect details of defense team payments from the prosecution’s eyes.
The prosecution theoretically might access certain defense billing statements, that themselves could include sensitive information such as the locations of investigators, and other things. The defense attorney continues: we may decide to use an investigator as an expert witness, and that’s confidential stuff, your honor. But lo, now we discover that the lawyer has buried the lede a bit: thankfully, says Connell, discussions with the opposing team have produced compromise language regarding billing statements. Peace having broken out, the judge eyeballs and then adopts the language proposed, without further debate on AE160.
Apropos of peace breaking out, it seems the second of Connell’s group is, in fact, a joint motion to produce the non-disclosure agreements employed for the privilege team in the Al-Nashiri case. (Connell merely desires to know what such agreements entail.) Provided these don’t contain personal information, the prosecution doesn’t oppose the agreements’ disclosure to the defense. Neither does the court---though Judge Pohl wonders aloud about precisely who might have the documents. At any rate, the joint motion is granted, and court and counsel trot quickly to our next agenda item.-final.png?sfvrsn=b70826ae_3)
