Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Nov 8, 2012 in Present |

Private Manning’s defense presents a partial guilty plea

Private Manning's defense presents a partial guilty plea

Some time ago that has stopped hoarding newspaper pages of half the world, however, the soldier who leaked military documents on Iraq and Afghanistan remains stopped (since May 2010) and faces a possible council War for leaking classified documents and their subsequent publication in . The process, from almost a year ago is in a preview under Article 32 of the Code of Military Justice, ie a pre-trial procedure that values that sufficient evidence exists to hold a council of war (which is estimated to take place in February 2013). During this preview, Manning’s defense has made an unexpected move to tell the court that Manning is guilty but not of what he accuses the U.S. government but of other less serious crimes , ie, has presented a case of partial guilt.

The prosecution accuses Manning of leaking classified documents and thus violating Articles 92 and 134 of the Code of Military Justice in addition to violating the Espionage Act, a crime that is among the most serious charge possible: aiding the enemy ( a capital offense is charged with the death penalty or life imprisonment). As you said Manning’s defense lawyer , this change in the consideration of the accused (of innocent to guilty) does not respond to any agreement or compact with the prosecution, but responds to a legal remedy “pray for exceptions and substitutions” in which the defendant takes the blame for a series of crimes substitutes which accuse him without pleading guilty I did accused the U.S. government.

Following this request, the court is that you need to consider the petition and support this guilty plea and avoid holding a council of war (dictating a sentence commensurate with the crimes of which Manning takes the blame and that, logically, are less than treason, espionage or aiding the enemy). The prosecution, in parallel, can accept this guilt or to continue with the preview presenting evidence to support his thesis and seek to hold the court martial (because as Manning’s lawyer says two things are completely compatible and, if prosecutors are not happy with the proposed charges, has the ability to continue to provide evidence to support their cause).

Will you accept this reduction in the prosecution of crimes consideration or further forward? For now, the truth is that no one knows anything about it though, in my opinion, it is likely that prosecutors seek the conclusion of the war council and ask most of the penalties (looking perhaps the lesson). Moreover, as it is made known, the defense has asked Manning if held a council of war, it is only a military judge and not a jury trial, with the idea of seeking a more favorable scenario prevent the verdict depends on a wider group of soldiers.

Tags: , , ,