Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JOHN N. MAHER*
KEVIN J. MIKOLASHEK
DAVID G. BOLGIANO
i
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii
I. Absent Review By The Court, Prosecutors And
Sanity Boards Are Not Incentivized To Search
For and Consider Evidence of Prior
Administration of Mefloquine And To Correctly
Attribute Its Long-Term Psychotic Effects As
Bearing On Premeditated Murder, Especially in
Death Penalty Cases ...........................................22
A. Prosecutors’ Duty to Justice, Not Just
Winning ................................................................22
B. Mefloquine Psychosis Compromises Mens Rea
to Commit Premeditated Murder........................25
II. The Law Has Not Kept Pace With Biometric
Technology in Criminal Prosecutions .................28
A. Fingerprint and DNA Evidence That
Witnesses Were Not Only Farmers, But Also
Terrorist Bombmakers ........................................31
CONCLUSION ..........................................................36
APPENDIX
Appendix A-United States Court of Appeals Order
dated February 15, 2018 ................................... A-1
Appendix B-United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals Opinion dated September 27, 2017..... A-4
Appendix C-Excerpts from Commander's Guide to
Biometrics in Afghanistan............................... A-28
Appendix D-Assistant Secretary of Defense
Memorandum ................................................... A-40
iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) .......................23
Barbee v. Warden, 331 F.2d 842 (4th Cir.
1964) ......................................................................31
Barton v. Warden, 786 F.3d 450 (6th Cir. 2015) ......32
Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78 (1935) .......23, 24
Bies v. Sheldon, 775 F.3d 386 (6th Cir. 2014) ...........32
Blake v. Kemp, 758 F.2d 523 (11th Cir. 1985) ..........27
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) ...............4, 27
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963) ..................................................... 4, 14, 23, 24
Browning v. Trammell, 717 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir.
2013) ........................................................................2
Burt v. Uchtman, 422 F.3d 557 (7th Cir.
2005) ......................................................................27
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479
(1984) .....................................................................27
Dow v. Virga, 729 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2013).............32
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) ............32
Ivy v. Caspari, 173 F.3d 1136 (8th Cir. 1999) ...........26
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441
(1972) .................................................................9, 24
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) ........... 14, 24, 33
Lewis v. Connecticut Comm'r of Correction, 790 F.3d
1109 (2d Cir. 2015)................................................32
v
Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305 (4th Cir. 1995) .........32
Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) .......................26
Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2007).........26
Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) .......................33
Thomas v. Westbrooks, 849 F.3d 659 (6th Cir.
2017) ........................................................................2
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976) ........23, 24
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) .....23, 24
United States v. Brooks, 966 F.2d 1500 (D.C. Cir.
1992) ......................................................................33
United States v. DuBay, 17 CMR 147 (CMA
1967) ......................................................................14
United States v. Fuller, 941 F.2d 993 (9th Cir.
1991) ......................................................................27
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) ............23
United States v. Weintraub, 871 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir.
1989) ......................................................................32
vi
OTHER AUTHORITIES
A.B.A. Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution
and Defense Function, Standard 3-1.2(c) (4th ed.
2015) ................................................................ 22-23
Center for Army Lessons Learned, Commander’s
Guide to Biometrics in Afghanistan –
Observations, Insights, and Lessons (No. 11-25,
2011) (Biometrics Handbook) ...............................28
Urey Patrick and John Hall, In Defense of Self and
Others: Issues, Facts & Fallacies – The Realities
of Law Enforcement’s Use of Deadly Force, Second
Edition, Carolina Academic Press (2010) ............25
Thom Shanker, To Track Militants, U.S. Has a
System That Never Forgets a Face, New York
Times, July 13, 2011, available at
http://www.nytimes.com
/2011/07/14/world/asia/14identity.html?=0 ..........31
Reuters Staff, Who’s to Blame When an
Injured Soldier Kills Civilians? Reuters, March
12, 2012 ...................................................................5
Craig Whitlock and Richard Leiby, Army Staff Sgt.
Robert Bales Charged With Murdering 1[6]
Afghans,” Washington Post, March 24, 2012 ........5
vii
JURISDICTION
(1) a death;
2
Law to that of unlawful belligerents or brigands,
potentially targetable under the Law of War.
I. Proceedings at Trial
4
On March 11, 2012, in his 42nd month of combat
service in the midst of his fourth combat deployment,
Bales dropped his protective gear (ballistic vest,
plates, and helmet), left the village stability platform,
and killed 16 persons of, as the United States termed
them, “apparent Afghan descent.” (R. Charge Sheet).
9
B. Impeachment of Afghan Sentencing Witnesses
10
usher them in and around Joint Base Lewis-
McChord, and accompany them on the return trip to
Afghanistan after they testified at the sentencing
phase of the trial.
1. Gregory Rayho
18
Prosecution witness Mullah Baran indeed, as the U.S.
Department of State reported to the prosecution, was
a “Coalition detainee” at the Detention Facility at
Parwan, Afghanistan, or “DFIP.” United States’
biometric records show that he is a known associate
of the Taliban, terror cells, insurgent groups, to
include involvement with weapons caches throughout
Kandahar Province.
20
Concerning bombmaking terrorist testimony, the
Court of Appeals produced only a portion of the
written defense discovery request in its opinion but
omitted the most important part: the specific written
request for biometric information using words like
“BATS” and “HIIDES,” the vernacular used to
describe biometric tools used to collect and store
fingerprints and DNA, and connoting where the
information sought could be reasonably located.
Id. at (i).
28
Soldiers carrying enrollment devices in their kits,
called BAT, for Biometrics Automated Toolset, and/or
HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection
Equipment. Id. at 50; A-34-35. Upon biometrics
enrollment, the person is assigned a biometric
enrollment number, their fingerprints and
photograph are taken, an iris scan is performed, DNA
is secured, personal data is obtained, all uploaded as
a template.
29
previously-uploaded DNA and/or fingerprint
information.
(https://peoiews.army.mil/programs/biometrics).
CONCLUSION
36
Bales respectfully seeks a new trial or that the Court
grant a Writ of Certiorari, vacate the decision of the
Court of Appeals, and remand the case to the United
States.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN N. MAHER*
KEVIN J. MIKOLASHEK
DAVID G. BOLGIANO
37