Propublica is a non -profit news room that investigates power abuse. Sign up and receive the biggest story as soon as it is released.
More than two years after PROPUBLICA appealed for the Navy because it was unable to provide public access to the military court, the Pentagon was notified in advance of the pre -hearing of the preliminary hearing, which is an important milestone in the criminal case. I gave it for the first time.
These hearing in Article 32 end with recommendations on whether the incident will move forward, rejected, or to end with a non -judicial punishment.
DOD’s legal advisor Caroline Class publishes guidance earlier this year, posts future hearing in a secretary of the Navy, the Army, Air Force, and the National Land Security (Supervisory Coast Guard), and in a specific court record. A court called a court -Public website, which provided access and instructed to disclose the results of the military.
However, legal experts say that new guidance is not under the federal law that requires the army to dramatically increase general access to the judicial system.
For a long time, the army has resisted to publish a lawsuit to the public. The 2016 law, which was passed after revelation on sexual assaults extended in the army, DOD to develop the same policy as a private court that provides public access to “all stages of the military judicial system”. Instruct. The Federal Court System provides all hearing schedules and publicly real -time electronic access to submission, except for the most sensitive criminal case.
In contrast, the military usually keeps a record of all court, and keeps the record secretly, if the defendant is judged to be innocent while the case is active. In addition, there is no access to public records in the preliminary hearing stage, including reports that reject the case or to go to the court.
Experts generally take the ability to understand whether the military judicial system works fairly, and how the branches respond to problems such as sexual assault in the rank. Masu.
None of the new guidance will change. The army demands that the results of the hearing of the military law meeting are disclosed, but it is not up to 7 days after they end. Trials and appeals do not need to be published 45 days after the record is “certified”.
Good journalism brings a difference:
Our independent news room, which is our non -profit organization, has one job. The methods that our surveys have spurred the changes in the real world are as follows:
We are doing something new. Was it useful?
The new guidance requires the army to make at least three days of the court in the court of a preliminary hearing in the court. As a result, a hearing will be held, and anyone who is interested in attending a preliminary hearing for only a few days to get a clearance to get a military base that will probably travel to bases nationwide. It is. To get a clearance to enter a military base, it may take more than a week depending on the location.
Nevertheless, attendees do not know the importance of the case or the full name of the defendant unless they are directly involved. The Navy began posting a preliminary hearing on a court website in the latter half of last year, but these posts are currently lacking in the defendant’s full name, and what are the people who have been accused beyond the crime category. I do not explain whether it is explaining.
“The preliminary hearing stage is often the highest public interest in controversy,” said Franklin Rosen Brat, an associate professor at the Faculty of Law of Mississippi and the President of the National Military Laboratory. “News media, influenced communities, and others can get a glimpse of military justice, but ultimately these are half a scale. This seems to be expected by other countries. It is not access to the criminal dock.
Propublica’s lawsuit demands simultaneous access to records of the court at all levels, including the incident, and the case -by -case basis shows that the army needs to withheld. Unless otherwise, we are looking for a ruling that this kind of information is estimated to be open. that.
Reporters’ Committee for the freedom of the press and the 34 media organizations submitted an outline of Amics in this case. It claims that the unclear practices of the military have not complied with federal law and decades of court ruling. Propublica has been led to lawsuits by professional bono lawyers of sub -legal advisors, Sarah Matthews, and Gibson, Dunn & CRUTCHER LLP, SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP.
“I’m glad to see some progressive progress, but it’s much less than the revised Article 1 and the request of the parliament,” said Matthew. “In many cases, three days are not enough time to access the base. Navy has a seat until the case is over, so the general public is worth what the hearing is. I don’t even know if it is, and the Navy has been withholding the records of all courts, and even a few months after the lawsuit is guilty. It only occurs when it is judged.
According to Matthews, “it is virtually impossible for the general public to know whether the military court is fairly treating service members and whether justice is being performed.” I mentioned.
Spokesman said that the Navy did not comment on the pending lawsuit.
In December, the Navy’s leading lawyer, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and other defendants at the time asked the judge to reject the lawsuit, and the decision on military policy on access to the court to the judicial branch. It is necessary to have such a record or “free” access to such records, claiming that the first correction is not the case, and that the first fix is not the case. Propublica opposed the movement in January.
The Navy has repeatedly called the Federal Privacy Law and widely called the Navy, because the law does not allow the law to be a comprehensive seal of the court record. He claims that it will not be applied. DOD also acknowledges that you can release records despite the privacy method.
The handling of the Navy’s famous arson incident urged the proposal lawsuit submitted to the US District Court in the southern part of California. In 2020, the USS Bonhom Ricchard fired and burned for more than four days. The ship was destroyed and the Navy had more than $ 1 billion.
The Navy recruited Ryan Maze for the arson that worsened Ryan Maze, who was recruited for the sailor, and intentionally exposed it. Propublica discovered that he rarely linked him to the flame. This had no physical evidence that Mays or everyone ignited.
The Navy accused him of arson. A unique survey showed a wide range of safety disorders.
The judge feels that the sailor that destroyed the $ 1.2 billion naval ship was acquitted due to a fire
Maze was found to be innocent in his court in 2022, and in that year, Propoblica appealed for the Navy refusal to refuse to publish a court document related to his lawsuit.
Propublica has asked the court to issue an appropriate rules for recording, hearing schedules, and other information on the disclosure of other information. The government claimed that Austin was allowed to decide how to implement the law, and tried to reject that part of the lawsuit.
Last year, the Federal Judge determined that Propoblica’s claims to Austin should move forward. Judge wrote that Propublica claims that the issued guidelines are clearly inconsistent with the mission of Congress. “
The recent independent federal examination of the expert panel has developed an electronic access to public docks and “providing direct public access to the court war record for trials, prior to trials, and appeals. We recommend that you fully comply with the 2016 law.
“To enhance the trust and trust in the system, it requires more accurate data and transparency,” said a review.
Are there any hints for Propublica? Please help you do journalism.
Do you have a story to ask? Will you be a background source of your community, your school, or your workplace? Please contact me.
Enlarge
Megan Rose has contributed to the report.
