home

Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed May 04, 2005 at 01:07:35 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: The Judge has rejected Pfc. Lynndie England's guilty plea. It's back to square one.

***************
Original Post

The judge has called a three hour halt to Lynndie England's sentencing proceeding, saying she is presenting evidence that contradicts her acceptance of guilt:

A military court deciding the sentence for a key defendant in the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal was interrupted on Wednesday after the judge questioned the validity of the guilty plea.

Judge Col. James Pohl called a halt for three hours after testimony of a witness called by Lynndie England appeared to undermine her acceptance of guilt. England's smiling face on pictures of naked and humiliated Iraqis is a lasting image of the scandal. "There is evidence being presented that you are not guilty," Pohl told England.

The defense called England's ex-boyfriend and chief abuser Charles Graner as a witness this morning.

The witness, England's former boyfriend Charles Graner, had said from the stand that one of the central acts of the case -- in which England, now 22, appeared holding a naked prisoner on a leash -- was a legitimate prison procedure.

"If you don't believe you are guilty, if you honestly believe you were doing what Graner told you to do, then you can't plead guilty," the judge said. England had agreed to plead guilty in return for a shorter sentence.

The defense has been trying to show that England is mentally challenged and that she was manipulated by Graner.

Update: Understatement of the year from the Agence France-Presse and China's The Standard:

US investigations categorized the abuse as the isolated acts of a handful of bad apples. But many critics have raised suspicions that the Bush administration has protected the upper ranks.

More on Lynndie England's sentencing phase defense here.

< Conference Report on Real I.D. Bill Published | Conviction Upheld Despite Nancy Grace's Misconduct >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#1)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Do you think maybe General Ricardo Sanchez stepped to the plate; General Geoff Miller; General Smith (AF); Rumsfield; Dubya? General Karpinski offers something of substance. Or maybe General Taguba has MORE evidence....say a directive indicating that PFC England should take the rap.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#2)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Good for the judge, this woman is being used by the rats in washington. many questions must be asked of the big boys in washington, who is really behind this madness? England is a nothing person but is being used like so many others for political reasons you no nothing about. I say Free this woman and free all the political victim of this pointless non war, kill bin laden, and put bush and boys in prison in fact put bush in abu ghraib with his family and saddam, all can have fun behind bars.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Well said kitt.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    "There is evidence being presented that you are not guilty," Pohl told England. Oh, yeahhhhhhh.... Would that every poor person and person of color had such a conscientious judge looking out for them... And what evidence is there that she's not guilty? The pics were Photo-Shopped? That it's her twin sister in the pics? What the f#*k is the judge talking about?

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    He's talking about whether she had the intent to commit a crime. Crimes have two components, the act and the mental state. In order to be guilty of a crime, your actions have to be accompanied by the mental state proscribed by that particular law. He's not saying she isn't guilty. He isn't questioning her guilt. He's saying that yesterday she pleaded guilty and admitted the act and mental state but today is presenting arguments that go beyond mitigation for sentencing and instead contradict her acknowledgement of guilt. Had a jury found her guilty, this would not be an issue.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy asks,
    And what evidence is there that she's not guilty?
    She would not be directly responsible for all of her actions if she thought that G.W. wanted her to sexually humliate the prisoners. Althought based on Nuremburg I guess she would still be culpable to the extent she was able to distinguish between a lawful and unlawful command. Was Donald Rumsfeld oxygen deprived at birth? That would explain a lot.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Personally, TL, Blaghdaddy has had many experiences with Neanderthal bigots, most of whom were just "following the crowd." Blaghdaddy knew even as a kid that these cretins couldn't form the intent- but these are the perfect soldiers and strawmen for evil men to use to their ends. When people like England are out of the way (use her as a martyr if you like, Blaghdaddy couldn't care less), the ones pulling their strings will be revealed. Broken eggs be damned, Blaghdaddy wants to see an omelette made.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Clear as mud to me, TL. Let's say she is mentally, er, "special." She has some level of reduced mental capacity compared to some "standard." Does that mean in the eyes of the law, she may be guilty but not responsible (or not as responsible as if she weren't special)? I assume (only since I've never heard of it before) that being intoxicated or stoned and therefore also of a reduced mental capacity is no excuse if you commit a crime in that state - that is, it won't get you a "guilty but not responsible" verdict. How are the two reconciled?

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#9)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Oh yeah, I bring that up because I seem to recall reports of a whole lot of partying going on at the prison.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Sarcastic, I'll take a stab. Re: reduced mental capacity. I don't see it as a continuum, or sliding scale of mental capacity. I (and some others) see it as qualitative or unique mental states. So I would take issue of you framing her state of mind as measuring from a "standard" (there's no such thing, just norms and means).
    Does that mean in the eyes of the law, she may be guilty but not responsible
    . Not by being "special" per se, but by not being cognizant of her situation or able to distinguish lawful from unlawful behavior to the point where she couldn't "conspire" with Grainer to abuse prisoners. A lack of awareness of the import of her surroundings would explain her seemingly uncompromised good cheer while posing in the photos. The only good part is imagining the discomfort in the Pentagon and White House at the rug getting pulled back up.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#11)
    by nolo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    sarcastic one, the rejection of England's guilty plea has nothing to do with an argument that England lacked the mental capacity to harbor the intent to commit the crime to which she pleaded guilty. It has to do with whether she, in fact, regardless of mental capacity, committed the acts with the requisite level of intent. As for the intoxication issue, I don't practice criminal law, but I seem to remember from law school that intoxication won't absolve you of criminal liability (in some instances it can make it worse), but that it can be evidence that the actor was incapable of a particular level or type of criminal intent. For instance, if I were to kill someone in an auto accident, that might not be a crime. If I did it while driving drunk, however, the fact I was reckless enough to drive drunk could elevate the matter into a crime. On the other hand, if I were to kill someone in a fight while I was intoxicated, the fact I was intoxicated might be evidence tending to show that I wasn't quite capable of the level of premeditation or intentionality necessary to make the killing into a full-blown murder. I could still be guilty of something (maybe manslaughter of some stripe), but it wouldn't be premeditated murder if I was too drunk to plan it. If I've got this wrong, I'm sure TL or TChris will straighten me out.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Thanks mfox and nolo.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    off topic comment deleted

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#14)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    I think the judge is bending over pretty far backwards, either out of sympathy for Ms. England or out of a desire to pin the blame squarely at the Graner level, no higher and no lower. The crime she's charged with is abuse of a prisoner, an offense against the Manual for Courts Martial (the military criminal code). It seems pretty likely that she was in fact directed to do all of what she did by a superior officer. In the military (as the judge is saying) that's a defense (an excuse, technically, however, not a lack of intent -- everything she did, she did intentionally). There's a big exception to this rule in military law, however, which the judge is ignoring: following orders is no defense if you know the order is illegal. When she pleaded guilty yesterday and said she she knew that what she was doing was illegal, that was not inconsistent with following orders, in other words, if (as seems very clear) the orders were themselves clearly illegal. Didn't we all learn that from the Nuremburg Tribunal?

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#15)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    I just heard more about it on NPR. They reported that the judge said (or also said, not clear which) that he had to undo her guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to abuse prisoners, based on Graner's testimony on her behalf at the sentencing hearing, where he testified that he had believed at the time that his conduct and hers was legal. According to NPR, the judge said that since a criminal conspiracy requires that both parties be guilty, Graner's belief in the legality of their abusive tactics negated her guilt on the conspiracy regardless of her own beliefs. This is also bogus, IMHO. Graner pleaded guilty to these charges and accepted a ten year sentence. He is bound by that plea, including its implicit admission that his conduct was illegal and that he knew it was. The judge doesn't have to believe Graner's contrary testimony now, given in an obvious (if stupid and misguided) attempt to assist the young woman he impregnated and led into this mess -- much less does the judge have to hold that testimony against her. I say "against" her because by rejecting her guilty plea the judge is refusing her the right to choose whether to stand trial and to get the benefit of her plea bargain, if that's what she, with the assistance of counsel, has concluded is in her best interests at this time.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#16)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    Oops! To correct a significant factual error in my prior post, Graner did not plead guilty; he went to trial (TL covered it blow by blow) and was convicted. At his own sentencing hearing, however, he essentially admitted his guilt (presumably in an effort to mitigate his punishment). None of which affects my prior analysis, however. All of my points about why the judge's rulings today were wrong remain valid, I think.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:43 PM EST
    She has little credibility having changed her story now. But the real issue is that Alberto was asked to research and produce a legal brief describing what kind of torture and prisoner mistreatment could be alleged to be legal and on what grounds. His client at the time? The President. The papertrail goes directly to Dubya. We have the wrong person under the spotlight. Ricardo Sanchez, Alberto, Rummy, Dubya? War criminals. Anybody still wondering why Colin Powell is gone? Too smart and maybe too ethical for this crowd.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    There's a big exception to this rule in military law, however, which the judge is ignoring: following orders is no defense if you know the order is illegal. I don't think the judge is ignoring it at all. The position is that England thought was she was doing was completely legitamite. I'm not sure he's doing this out of sympathy with her, either. I think he's concerned that in the sentencing phase, the defense is putting on witnesses that contradict her plea. The evidence isn't of mitigation, but rather of innocence. I had the impression he admonished the defense for this tactic, and I'm inclined to agree. You cannot get the benefits of a plea bargain, and then turn around and claim innocence at sentencing.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    Your analysis seems accurate, Peter G., but I don't come to the same conclusion. My take is that: 1. If the Pentagon, FBI and CIA were confused about what is torture, and what rules applied, how could one expect the "front lines" and "interrogators" to be clear. 2. The higher-ups want guilty pleas and are leaning hard on the prosecutors to make deals. These hillbillies, in their naivete, don't get it and the truth keeps slipping out from under the rug (i.e., they were given carte blanche to treat the prisoners any way they wanted. 3. Janis Karpinsky was told to stay out of the way and sidelined in the operation of her own prison and now will be the highest level scapegoat to go down over this.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    Interestingly, (not directed at you, Peter G.) some who seemed so gung ho in justifying these methods (remember the one guy with his finger on the button?) and saying it wasn't torture are the most offended that this chick won't get the book thrown at her. I don't know which makes us look worse, the Abu Graib pictures of abused detainees or the world knowing that we recruit brain-damaged "slow" kids and put them in life-or-death situations.

    Re: Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    We are dealing with this scandal the same way we deal with drugs....throw the book at the liitle guy who is often a victim of circumstance, while the big fish swim away. I hope she gets off, but realizes the inhumanity of her actions.

    Judge Rejects Lynndie England's Guilty Plea | 21 comments (21 topical)