vagabond

JBLM C-17 pilot pleads not guilty to charges stemming from 2011 airdrop death | FOB Tacoma - The News Tribune

tomgoodman

From the article:
"Rosenow argues that the experts’ testimony could bias a court-martial panel because the members of the jury could rely on the experts to make their decisions instead of weighing other facts to determine Foley’s guilt."

Is he saying that expert testimony should not be allowed because the jury might believe it? A most unusual argument.

Hacker15e

That's the prosecutor making that statement...unbelievable.

Unlike at an FEB, the jury in a general Court-Martial is made up of everyday joes who may know nothing about aviation. I think they'd be pretty spring loaded to look at things in a very black-and-white fashion and not understand that non-specific thing that aviators have to use called 'judgment'.

LowSlowT2

Wow. Not sure who's pushing this. Hard to tell from the story or the original linked story within the article.

All I see coming from this witch hunt is fewer drops for the Army...

I hate AMC and strat airlift specifically.

Grumble

This guy is being hung out to dry. I hope things work out for him.

LivingInMEM

My best day in the USAF was when I gave up my AMC patch for an ACC patch. This is just another instance of soldiers/airmen being charged with crimes for making mistakes (this may not have even been a mistake in the traditional sense - i.e. it wasn't causal). Whether it be the F-16 manslaughter trial (2 U.S. Pilots Charged With Manslaughter in Errant Bombing - NYTimes.com), the Green Berets ridiculously charged (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/us...ring.html?_r=0), Lt Col Chessani (Michael Savage credited with making Haditha case difference), etc; it's all a matter of sacrificial lambs diverting attention from leadership and their failures whether it be poor ROE, sending troops in with poor training, or just setting soldiers up for failure by giving complex missions with no topcover. Notice that the leadership never faces trial.

WhistlePig

It's just part of the process and almost every trial. Both sides move to admit some evidence and keep out other evidence. All outside of the hearing of the finders of fact. The article probably oversimplified and misinterpreted the argument. Experts provide context and they provide learned opinions, but it is still just an opinion based upon the facts as presented to them. They are not eye witnesses. To not make the limiting argument could be malpractice. Even a weak argument forces the other side to proffer evidence as to why the testimony should be admitted, providing additional insight to your opponent's case. Also, this motion to suppress may be designed to narrow the expert testimony to topics in which they are actually an expert.
For example: A pilot expert may testify about procedures, training, actual operation of the aircraft. But if he testifies, what he would have done under the same conditions, that is not expert testimony, that is merely his opinion as a reasonable pilot. If he testifies as to whether the defendant acted reasonably under the facts at issue, that is usually an acceptable expert opinion. Now the other side can easily find their own expert who comes to the opposite conclusion. complex cases typically do become a "battle of the experts". Additionally, it's less expensive and more efficient to get these arguments out of the way before the jury is empaneled and, there are some objections that if you don't raise at certain stages of litigation, you waive. They may not be raised later during trial, or on appeal. Hope this helps.

rickair7777

Regrading the SF shooting...

The problem was that the dude was under control of the afghan police working with the ODA who shot him...he wasn't exactly a free-range chicken. I think the issue was whether he posed a threat or was essentially shot while detained. Ultimately, they were cleared of wrongdoing based on the possibility that guy was wearing a suicide vest...you could make a reasonable leap that a guy who made such bombs and organized suicide bombings might dance to his own tune.

Were they doing the right thing, yeah I think so. Were there potential legal and political pitfalls, yes. Ultimately the system worked the way we need it to...it granted wide latitude of judgement to the guy on the ground. Sucks that they went through the ringer and this case did, shall we say, dampen the enthusiasm of some operators.

LivingInMEM

Rickair,

Without going classified, they were within "their" ROE; read between the lines of the story or look for other stories, it's spelled out. Do more research and see the unethical behavior of the MGen and see the specifics of how they preferred charges and how many investigations cleared them. This is another example of leadership setting guys up for failure (ROE they create but won't back) and then following through to hammer them. Also, research how the MGen acted reference that Marine unit.

Also, look at the MGen's statement after charges were dropped, he said that he did it to clear their names! You DO NOT prefer criminal charges in order to clear names, that is NOT how the system works.

rickair7777

Not defending the upper leadership in this case at all. This was a tough situation politically, the military leadership MAY have felt that doing nothing to address the allegations would have had far-reaching political ramifications which might have been more detrimental to nebulous long-term goals. Me personally, I tend to default to doing the right thing, right now, for the guy on the ground (maybe that's why I'm not an O-7+).