MILITARY: Undue influence decision in hands of judge

July 21 trial date for highest-ranking officer charged in Haditha case

By TERI FIGUEROA - Staff Writer | Tuesday, June 3, 2008 7:13 PM PDT ∞

CAMP PENDLETON ---- The question of whether improper influence tainted the decision to criminally charge a Camp Pendleton officer for allegedly failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians is in the hands of a military judge.

Military prosecutors argued at a pretrial hearing Tuesday that there was no undue influence in the decision to bring criminal charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani.

The Colorado native is accused of dereliction of duty for failing to conduct a full-scale investigation into the Nov. 19, 2005, civilian deaths in Haditha, Iraq. The deaths happened in the aftermath of a roadside bombing that killed a Marine.

Chessani's attorneys have asked the judge to dismiss the charges. The case was tainted, they argued, when one of the investigators into the killings later sat as a legal advisor to the general who eventually ordered criminal charges be brought against Chessani.

Chessani's court-martial is set to start July 21. But Chessani's attorneys hope the pretrial battle over improper influence will lead to dismissal of the case before then.

Col. Steven Folsom, the military judge presiding over Chessani's case, may make his decision by the next pretrial hearing, which is set for June 16.

Prosecutors are trying to rebut Folsom's finding last month that there could have been undue influence in Gen. James N. Mattis' decision to bring charges against Chessani.

The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was neither actual influence, nor the appearance of such.

Mattis testified Monday that a legal adviser on his staff, Col. John Ewers, attended meetings with him about the Haditha case. Mattis said Ewers' counsel was not sought, nor was it welcome as it related to the war crimes accusations.

That, the general said, was because Ewers' role as an investigator during the original Haditha probe essentially disqualified him from offering legal advice about whether charges should be brought.

The report arising out of the investigation by Ewers and others essentially found that officers had been derelict when they failed to investigate the killings.

After taking part in the investigation, Ewers was subsequently assigned as a legal advisor to Mattis.

Ewers duties in that position, however, did not include advising the general on the Haditha matter. That job fell under the jurisdiction of a different legal adviser to the judge.

But Ewers said he attended at least a dozen meetings also attended by Mattis and other attorneys where the Haditha matter was discussed.

In deciding whether there was undue influence, actual or just the appearance of such, Folsom may take into consideration whether Ewers' presence at the meetings had a chilling effect on the attorney tasked with offering Mattis legal advice on the Haditha case.

That attorney, Lt. Col. William Riggs, is one rank junior to Ewers.

Prosecutors put Mattis and Ewers on the stand, but they did not call on testimony from Riggs.

Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 740-5442 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.