State/Country relating to question: Illinois
Talking to JAG attorney and Civilian attorney, research online
Thank you for using Just Answer. Between my law practice and other law related jobs, I have over 13 years experience and current JAG officer.This question is very vague. Can you explain your situation a bit more so that I can address your actual question?
My Husband is being charged with a Court Marshall. He is a Chief in the US Navy and the trial is based on accusations and lies. Two of the commands witnesses have wrote statements that are complete lies and totally false. My husband was asked to illegally drive a government vehicle and said no. All of a sudden charges that are complete lies have come up in order to cover His Command Master Chiefs request. So the question is how do we disprove/discredit these females at witnesses and get thier written statements thrown out or disproved or have them charged with Slander under violation of UCMJ good order and descipline
There is no legal method to "prove" someone is lying. It simply doesn't work like that.If a person makes a statement, the only way to try and show they are lying is to find inconsistencies in the statement, to put forward a more accurate portrayal of the facts with more witnesses, etc.The court doesn't simply agree that they must be lying simply because I, as an attorney representing a client, put forward a statement that says they are lying. The court has to consider both statements put forward and then, based on the facts, the reliability of the witnesses and the feasibility of the evidence, the court will decide what the truth is.So, you're asking a question here that assumes that you can just simply state "they are lying, so charge them" when you have no greater evidence that they are lying that they have that they are telling the truth.You've presented no evidence, in your statement, that justifies having their statements thrown out. The fact that you say they are lies should certainly be raised during the Court Martial, but it will not effect the admissibility of their evidence. It will, instead, effect the weight that the jury is willing to give that evidence.So, I think that you are getting away ahead of yourself here. Defend the trial, have your husband make his own more reliable statement and attack the inconsistencies in their statement. Perhaps, during cross examination in the trial, they will make a statement that makes it much more clear that they are lying, but unless you have concrete evidence that they are lying that is more compelling than simply your statement that they are lying, you're not going to be able to convince a commander to charge them with a false official statement at this time.
There is actually evidence though that they are lying. There are several people who worked with my husband that can testify that these things absolutley did not happen. Also several people that are willing to come forward as character witnesses. We also have some hard evidence such as emails text messages etc diproving the prosc. case. On top of that the star witness was Fraud. enlisted into the navy and my husband being the chief of her former recruiting station has proof of that. The Recruiter that put her in is also testifying against my husband and the fact that she enlisted someone illegally throws her credablity out completly.
Character witnesses for your husband are not evidence that they are lying, so that helps in your trial but not to charge them.The witnesses that will counter them are better, but again, they are just people that are making statements too. When I say concrete evidence, I mean pictures, videos, or something else which makes their statement completely and practically impossible.The fact that the star witness was fraudulently enlisted goes to that person's character, but again it is not PROOF that they are lying. The fact that the recruiter is also testifying is an interesting fact and certainly damages that person's credibility, but what you don't seem to be understanding here is that does not mean that he can't testify. If it worked that way, your husband wouldn't be allowed to testify. Why? Because he, as the accused, has a vested interest in winning his trial, so everything he says has to be weight against that bias. Is it fair to say then that he is not allowed to speak? No and the law doesn't work that way.These facts that you have given, they are all really good facts for your husband's trial. Focus on that now. Wait until that is done and won. Then, if through the course of the trial, their lies become obvious, you can then start pushing for charges to brought against them and you can personally seek defamation lawsuits against them.Until then, you have to understand that nothing that you've said to this point is going to stop them from being able to testify.jagcorps_esq41054.9465164005
I get what your saying and not trying to get them not to testify just dicredit tham and help my husband to have a better chance.
I understand, but you discredit them during the trial. That is how this is won. From the stuff you've been writing, it sounds like you have a lot of evidence to discredit them and their story. Don't get distracted right now by trying to charge them with false statements or filing a civil claim. Neither fact would be admissible as evidence against them during your husband's trial anyway.Maintain your focus on his trial. Put forward his defense. Attack their credibility and story there. Then, once that is won, you are free to start pushing for these other things.
What if my husband went to his C.O with information proving the two statement were lies in order to see if the C.O would stop the trial and allow him an NJP with an admin board if so needed. Because the C.O is directly involved in covering up the one female breaking the law he may just get scared and not want to drag his name through the mud at a CM but keep it quiet and nice.
Your husband can certainly do that, but given that a trial is already in process the commander likely does not have the power to stop it now.Additionally, it sounds like part of the discussion would be a veiled threat to the commander. That comes dangerously close to extortion, which is a crime. I don't think that is wise.I think you need to keep this above board and work through the current court martial, where he has rights and protections, the rules of evidence and procedure at his disposal and an attorney to help.
Would it be less likely to be percieved as a veiled threat if his jag attorneys approached the captain with this information with the intent of protecting the commands reputation instead of bringing it out in front of a judge. The co has an open offer of an oth Discharge at njp that has not expired yet and I think he still has the power to sweeten the offer if he risks embarrasment at cm.
If the JAG attorneys approach, they'll understand the proper things to say and also know what not to say.There is no problem with them going to the commander. He should not do so by himself.
I am signing off for the day, in case you decide to ask another question in the next few hours.I'll be back on first thing in the morning and will address any question that you may have asked then.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).