Lawyers decline to put on defense for alleged Ft. Hood shooter |

Lawyers decline to put on defense for alleged Ft. Hood shooter

The Los Angeles Times

FORT HOOD, Texas — Lawyers for an Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people during a shooting rampage at Fort Hood a year ago declined to put on a defense case yesterday, ending a military hearing to determine whether Maj. Nidal Hasan should face murder charges.

Fort Hood’s senior commander will ultimately decide whether there is enough evidence to try Hasan at a court-martial for opening fire on soldiers Nov. 5, 2009, at a medical processing center for troops deploying to and from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasan, 40, is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder. He could face the death penalty.

John P. Galligan, a retired Army colonel and Hasan’s civilian attorney, said he was unable to present a proper defense because the government has denied his requests for internal reports related to the shootings.

“I haven’t been given the evidence I’ve asked for, so I’m not in a position to put on evidence,” he said.

The defense is not required to present a case in an Article 32 hearing, which is similar to a preliminary hearing. It is not unusual for defense lawyers to refrain from putting on witnesses so they don’t reveal their legal strategy.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.