In the Article 32 hearing (military speak for pre-trial hearing) and the subsequent announcement to refer Pendleton 8 member PFC John Jodka to court martial, the Investigating Officer at the Article 32 hearing noted the inherent problems with the case, including: the evidence, witness availability, and recommended the dismissal of several charges.
However, General Mattis used in his court martial convening order, the recommendations of his Staff Judge Advocate. This now brings into question the value of the Article 32 process.
Jodka's attorney's had originally requested to waive the Article 32 hearing and go directly to trial- as is their right - and begin the process of an early start in exonerating PFC Jodka.
The government however denied Jodka's right to request a waiver of the Article 32.
Let's get this straight: The government has been able to pick-and-choose which evidence the defense has access to and which it does not. PFC Jodka wanted to skip the Article 32 pre-trial hearing and go directly to trial. The government instead denied his request and said the Article 32 was necessary in order to determine if the case should proceed to trial. The Investigating Officer reveals problems with the case...but instead...the recommendations of the Staff Judge advocate are followed.
Is this the fair, orderly judicial process we as Americans assume is afforded our military members?
Keep checking back for more updates.
Comments