That’s the prosecution’s entire case?? One doctor who testified that in his expert opinion Santiago had been poisoned?
No forensic evidence? No witnesses? No poison found in the body or on the rag stuffed in his mouth? The doctor said there are plenty of toxins that wouldn’t leave a trace, but I find that highly suspect. I’d like to know a few poisons that PFCs have access to that not only leaves no trace in a body that expired in an hour, but no trace on a rag.
The defense could have easily called TEN expert doctors who would have testified that poison was not even possibly the most likely answer, never mind the “Absolutely” that the doctor testified about.
And once ‘murder’ is thrown out the window, (Because one doctor does not even remotely prove that) conspiracy goes with it. So we’re left with ‘conduct unbecoming a marine’ which ultimately is what the marines were found guilty of. So Kendrick and Jessup’s testimony weren’t even necessary.
In fact, if Dawson and Downey had just clammed up, they could have walked since the prosecution didn’t even bother trying to prove they were guilty of ‘conduct unbecoming a Marine’.
Exactly. That they killed Santiago wasn’t in doubt. The prosecution had, a.) The doctor testifying that the rag had been poisoned, b.) Testimony by the rest of the platoon that everyone had been ordered not to discipline Santiago with a code red, and c.) Motivation for a murder in the form of Santiago’s witnessing the fence-line shooting incident.
Captain Jack Ross: Yes sir. The facts of the case are this: At midnight on August 6th, the defendants went into the barracks room of their platoon-mate, PFC William Santiago. They woke him up, tied his arms and legs with rope, and forced a rag into his throat. A few minutes later, a chemical reaction in Santiago’s body called lactic acidosis caused his lungs to begin bleeding. He drowned in his own blood and was pronounced dead at 32 minutes past midnight.
These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed. That’s right. The story I just told you is the exact same story you’re going to hear from Corporal Dawson, and it’s the exact same story you’re going to hear from Private Downey. Furthermore, the Government will also demonstrate that the defendants soaked the rag with poison, and entered Santiago’s room with motive and intent to kill.
Now, Lt. Kaffee is gonna try to pull off a little magic act, he’s gonna try a little misdirection. He’s going to astonish you with stories of rituals and dazzle you with official sounding terms like Code Red. He might even cut into a few officers for you. He’ll have no evidence, mind you, none. But it’s gonna be entertaining. When we get to the end, all the magic in the world will not have been able to divert your attention from the fact that Willy Santiago is dead, and Dawson and Downey killed him. These are the facts of the case.
But the prosecution is charging them with murder 1. They have to be. Poisoning a rag is intent. So the prosecution has to prove that. Had the prosecution charged them with manslaughter, I can see why the ‘code red’ defense applies, but Murder 1? The defense should have laughed.
edit: I guess at the end of the day, I don’t believe the prosecution came close to proving the defendants soaked a rag with ‘magic-disappeering’ poison.
By the way…that opening statement sounds awfully unethical. Can the defense in their opening statement turn around and say “Now Captain Ross is going to call a doctor whose testimony I can easily disprove. And other than that, he’ll have no evidence. None. And THOSE are the undisputed facts.”
It just seems like referring to your opponents case in opening statement rather than closing creates a lot of problems. I’m jus sayin…
Look, the challenge wasn’t convicting Susan Atkins, Leslie van Houten, Tex Watson, or Patricia Krenwinkle of the Tate-LaBianca murders. The challenge was convicting Charlie Manson of ordering them. Same thing in this movie, wasn’t it?
Except that the prosecution formally charged Manson with ordering murders.
In the movie, the whole thing is to try to trick the Colonel into incriminating himself on the stand.
All the real prosecutor had to do was say, “Object! That question is impermissible!” and the whole thing falls apart. You’ll note, in the movie, the prosecutor just sits there stupidly and lets the improper question get asked, and the judge just sits there and lets it go also. Absolutely impossible.
Okay, yeah, damn fine scene, but…
“Did you order the Code Red?”
“You’re God Damned…huh… Almost lost my temper. You’re out of line there, son. Ask me another.”
In the play, (I’m watching the movie now, haven’t got to the end yet)…the judge finds Kaffee guilty of contempt…but forgets all that once Jessup starts monologuing.
As we learn from the beginning of trial, Captain Randolph (the colonel presiding over the court martial) admits into evidence the confessions of both Dawson and Downey were admitted into evidence. The substance of those confessions establishes that Dawson and Downey planned to enter Santiago’s room and beat the crap out of him, and that they used a rag to gag him when they did so.
The testimony of the NIS[sup]*[/sup] agent, McGuire, established that Santiago sent a letter to NIS accusing someone in Windward company of illegally firing a weapon over the fenceline, and that his further investigation revealed that the for the shift in question, only one sentry returned his weapon with around of ammunition missing: Dawson. McGuire also testifies that because Santiago was now dead, there was insufficient evidence to charge defendant Dawson with a crime related to the fenceline shooting.
Finally, the evidence relating to poison:
Commander Stone, the Navy doctor, is asked, “What caused Santiago’s muscles and other cells to start burning sugar?”
He replies, “An ingested poison of some kind.”
Although the defense objects on grounds of “speculation,” the judge admits the testimony. In fact, Kaffee withdraws the objection, which doesn’t preserve it for the record – which I think was an error. Regardless, the judge’s ruling was that the testimony was admissible.
Further direct examination only makes this point stronger: when asked if Santiago died of poisoning, Stone replies, “Absolutely.”
Now, you said:
That is absolutely untrue. The jury is perfectly entitled to rely on one doctor’s testimony. The jury’s job is to sit as a finder of fact. Their verdict won’t be disturbed unless there is no evidence in the record to support it. There is no rule that multiple witnesses must testify to a fact: legally speaking, the jury can rely on Commander Stone’s testimony, especially since he testified that “…The nature of the acidosis is the compelling factor in this issue.” In other words, the jury has facts on the record that allow them to conclude that even though no poison was found, the nature of the acidosis proves poison was used.
Finally, Galloway renews the objection as to Stone’s testimony, to Colonel Randoph’s annoyance, and he again rules that the opinion can be admitted as expert testimony – although at least she does preserve their objection for the appeal.
And another thing: if the poison is unproved, the evidence still shows manslaughter – I agree that since manslaughter is a general intent crime, there is no conspiracy charge possible. But the evidence supports the conclusion that Dawson and Downey were pissed at Santiago, snuck into his room, and beat him, which caused him to die, a foreseeable result of such an attack even though unintended.
Not entirely, the testimony to that point (the two contradictory orders, and that Santiago hadn’t in any way prepared for a flight he was supposedly taking off the base forever in a few hours) had already tarnished Jessup’s credibility as to the orders he gave.
I don’t know the judge’s feelings on it, but Ross had made some unflattering remarks about Jessup & co, and didn’t think the defendents belonged in prison: (“Don’t you dare lump me in with Jessup and Kendrick just because we wear the same uniform. I’m your friend and I’m telling you, I don’t think your clients belong in jail but I don’t get to make that decision!”). Maybe it wasn’t stupidity, but letting justice play out.
Downey said the plan was to shave Santiago’s head.
In the movie (not sure about the play) the whole reason that Tom Cruise is assigned to the case is because he has a reputation for pleading out. Remember the whole theme about him never having seen the inside of a courtroom?
The brass wanted the case dealt with quickly, which is why it must necessarily become a Hollywood David v. Goliath.
