Summary

United States vs. Mohammed Jawad… (2008)

Secondly, to question the relevance of bringing in the testimony of somebody who sat in his office and watched it, Colonel Henley was on the record as correcting the defense earlier when the defense had its own witness watch testimony, and then come in and presume to give an opinion about that.
As you well know, the rules of court normally forbid somebody other than an expert witness from watching testimony and then coming in and giving an opinion about it. And then we would question the relevance of Captain McCarthy's testimony in that regard.
Source: Wikisource

United States vs. Mohammed Jawad… (2008)

I'm merely stating my interaction with General Hartmann on those issues. And the judge, I suppose, can figure out, you know, whether it's right, wrong or indifferent. I did not have those conversations by and large with the head prosecutor, and I did not have those conversations by and large with the head defense counsel. I had those conversations with the legal advisor to the military commissions, to the convening authority. those conversations by and large with the head defense counsel. I had those conversations with the legal advisor to the military commissions, to the convening authority.
Source: Wikisource

United States vs. Mohammed Jawad… (2008)

On the issue of, as you responded to your counsel or to counsel's question about identifying himself with prosecution efforts, isn't it right that a number of the issues that you and he dealt with each other on, and some of the ones that became controversial or matters of debate were not prosecution specific, but had to do with the process and had equal impact on defense, as well as prosecution?
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature