The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture

 

War Profiteers Main Index

Killing of Iraqi Civilians Index

The Mahmudiya Massacre

 

 

The Massacre of Mahmudiya - The Rape and Murder of Abeer Qasim Hamsa

 

United States of America vs. Steven Dale Green -  The 2007 Case File

 

Criminal Proceedings against Steven D. Green

 

U.S. vs. Steven D. Green

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

Case No.: 5:06-CR-00019-R (prior to November 3rd, 2006: 3:06 MJ 230)

 

December 18th, 2007 - Order

December 13th, 2007 - Response to United States’ Motion for Trial Date

December 7th, 2007 - United States’ Motion for Trial Date

December 5th, 2007 - Order

November 20th, 2007 - Order

November 14th, 2007 - Order

July 3rd, 2007 - United States’ Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty

March 9th, 2007 - Order & Memorandum Opinion as to Motion to Dismiss Indictment

February 8th, 2007 - Order Granting Motion to Unseal Certain Pleadings

February 2nd, 2007 - Response to Motion to Dismiss Indictment

February 2nd, 2007 -  Motion to Unseal Certain Grand Jury Related Pleadings

January 19th, 2007 - Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal of the Indictment

 

December 18th, 2007 - Order

 

“[…] Here, the Court finds that a trial date in April 2009, will not unduly burden the public’s right to a speedy trial. The Court finds that Defendant’s request of this date is not for the purposes of delay but rather to allow him to prepare a competent defense in a complex case. With respect to this issue the Court notes that ‘death is different’ and a capital case involves requires greater reliability and heightened scrutiny of all rulings affecting the case. […] The Court also notes that the possibility that witness’ testimony will fade is alleviated to some extent as the military co-accused, on whose testimony the United States’ case is premised in large part, all have given sworn testimony in other proceedings. […]

 

“It is hereby ordered:

 

“[…] 9. On or before December 5, 2008, the parties shall exchange proposed jury instructions.

 

“10. On or before January 16, 2009, the parties shall file jury instructions. The parties shall designate those upon which they agree and those they do not. On the instructions on which they disagree, the parties shall include citations of authority supporting their proposed instruction.

 

“11. Jury questionnaires shall be sent to the jury on or before January 9, 2009, and provided to counsel between February 15 and March 1, 2009. […]

 

“13. The trial is set for April 13, 2009. The length of the trial is three to five weeks including jury selection. […]”

 

December 13th, 2007 - Response to United States’ Motion for Trial Date

 

“[…] PFC Green is charged under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, 18 U.S.C. §3162 (a) (2). This prosecution is unique, in that - to defense counsel’s knowledge - PFC Green is the first United States soldier or former soldier to ever be charged under this statute. More specifically, PFC Green appears to be the first person to be charged in a civilian court with allegations of crimes that occurred while serving as a United States soldier in a war zone. Unlike his military co-accused and all similarly situated defendants before him, PFC Green does not face prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice before a military court-martial with its radically different procedures, protections, penalties, and range of punishments.

 

“PFC Green’s case is also exceptional in that - again, unlike his military coaccused - the United States is seeking to execute him. Even though the equally culpable military co-accused include two of PFC Green’s Army superiors, none of them faced the prospect of the death penalty in their military court-martials. Indeed, the worst sentence imposed on any of them will result in parole eligibility in 10 years. The best sentence PFC Green can possibly receive if convicted is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This, despite the fact, that his two superiors (SGT Paul Cortez and SPC James Barker) were convicted of the same multiple murder and rape charged here. A third coaccused, PFC Jesse Spielman, was also convicted at court-martial. All of these soldiers will be eligible for parole within 10 years. PFC Green, on the other-hand, faces the prospect of execution following his civilian trial under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.

 

“Despite the unusual and complicated nature of this case, the United States has moved the Court to set this matter for trial on August 4, 2008. The United States primarily argues the ‘public’s right to a speedy trial’ as grounds for the hastened trial date.

 

“After consultation with the mitigation consultants, investigators, and psychiatric experts retained by counsel in the preparation of this unique and complex case, it is the position of the defense that the trial date requested by the United States is premature. The defense submits that a more appropriate trial date to insure that both the United States and the defense can be adequately prepared for this capital trial is April, 2009. […]”

 

December 7th, 2007 - United States’ Motion for Trial Date

 

“[…] On June 30, 2006, Steven Green was arrested in North Carolina on a Criminal Complaint charging him with violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3261(a)(2), the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. The charges stemmed from Green’s alleged involvement in a rape and quadruple homicide in Yousifiyah, Iraq, on March 12, 2006, while Green was serving as a soldier in the United States Army.

 

“On November 7, 2006, a grand jury in the Western District of Kentucky returned a seventeen-count indictment against Green alleging conspiracy to commit murder and sexual abuse, premeditated murder, felony murder, aggravated sexual abuse, aggravated sexual abuse with a child, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, and obstruction of justice. On July 3, 2007, the United States filed its notice of intent to seek the death penalty.

 

“During a further proceeding held on November 30, 2006, the Court found the case to be complex, and concluded that it was unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings, or for the trial itself, within the time limits set by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. During a telephonic further proceeding held on April 4, 2007, the Court asked the parties to try and reach an agreement upon schedule for trial of the case, as well as for various pretrial deadlines. During a further proceeding conducted by the Court on August 29, 2007, the United States suggested trial begin in the Spring of 2008, while defense counsel suggested Summer or perhaps late Fall of 2008. The Court expressed desire for a firm and agreed-upon trial date to be determined at the next further proceeding which was held on November 13, 2007.

 

“By letter of October 30, 2007, the United States proposed to defense counsel a pretrial schedule and proposed a late summer trial date of August 4, 2008. Shortly before the further proceeding of November 13, 2007, defense counsel submitted to the United States, and to the Court, a letter stating the position of the defense that trial should not be scheduled prior to April 2009, which is 30 months after Green’s indictment and 21 months after the United States’ notice of intent to seek the death penalty was filed. In light of the respective positions of the parties, it is clear the parties will be unable to reach an agreement, as the Court requested, as to when this case should be set for trial. Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests that the Court set the matter for trial beginning August 4, 2008. […]”

 

December 5th, 2007 - Order

 

“[…] A telephonic conference was set for Noon on December 5, 2007. Due to the an unexpected scheduling conflict, counsel contacted the Court at an earlier time. Appearing for the United States was Marisa J. Ford and appearing for the Defendant was Assistant Federal Defender, Patrick Bouldin. The official court reporter was Regina McBride.

 

“The parties confirmed that there are ongoing discovery discussions, which may require motions and Court determination. Despite best efforts, the parties disagree on a trial date. The disagreement centers on substantive Speedy Trial issues. Both parties agreed this issue should be briefed.

 

“It Is Ordered the United States shall file its brief by Noon, Friday, December 7, 2007. The Defendant shall file his brief by Noon, Tuesday, December 11, 2007. An in person further proceedings is set for Thursday December 13, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. EST in Louisville, Kentucky. The Defendant shall be present. The Court will hear arguments on the trial date issue at that time. […]”

 

November 20th, 2007 - Order

 

“[…] At the request of counsel, the in person further proceedings scheduled for November 27, 2007 is canceled. A telephonic further proceedings is set on December 5, 2007 at 12:00 Noon CST. The Court will place the call. It is so ordered. […]”

 

November 14th, 2007 - Order

 

“[…] The parties discussed scheduling issues. The parties have been attempting to resolve discovery matters. Counsel for Defendant stated he had outstanding discovery issues he needed to discuss with the United States. The United States indicated that the needed security clearance checks should be completed within two weeks.

 

“All parties agreed a trial date is needed. There was disagreement as to the date. The parties stated that further discussion between them is necessary. The Court agreed.

 

“The Court directed the parties to exchange position papers on issues of discovery and schedules. Counsel then must meet to attempt to resolve any disagreements.

 

“An in person further proceedings is scheduled for November 27, 2007 in Louisville, Kentucky at 4:00 p.m. EST. On or before November 23, 2007, the parties shall submit a joint position statement which sets forth all resolved and unresolved discovery issues. As to the parties unresolved discovery matters, the parties shall summarize their arguments in support of their positions. In addition, the joint position statements shall provide a proposed schedule identifying said issues that require a deadline date and which should be included in the order. As to those dates or scheduling issues on which the parties are unable to agree, the parties shall include their suggested arguments in support of their position. It is so ordered. […]”

 

July 3rd, 2007 - United States’ Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty

 

“[…] The United States of America, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a), notifies the Court and defendant Steven D. Green, that it believes the circumstances of the offenses charged in Counts Three through Ten and Thirteen through Sixteen of the indictment are such that, in the event of a conviction, a sentence of death is justified under Chapter 228 (Sections 3591 through 3598) of Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore the United States will seek the sentence of death for the following offenses:

 

“(1) Premeditated murder resulting in the death of Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi, which would have constituted an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had it been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3261 (a)(2) [Count Three];

 

“(2) Premeditated murder resulting in the death of Hadeel Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi, which would have constituted an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had it been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3261 (a)(2) [Count Four];

 

“(3) Premeditated murder resulting in the death of Kassem Hamza Rachid [sic] Al-Janabi, which would have constituted an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had it been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3261 (a)(2) [Count Five];

 

“(4) Premeditated murder resulting in the death of Fakhriya Taha Mohsine Al-Janabi, which would have constituted an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1111 had it been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3261 (a)(2) [Count Six]; […]”

 

March 9th, 2007 - Order & Memorandum Opinion as to Motion to Dismiss Indictment

 

“[…] This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal of the Indictment, Grand Jury Related Discovery, and Appropriate Sanctions. Plaintiff has filed a response. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is denied. […]”

 

February 8th, 2007 - Order Granting Motion to Unseal Certain Pleadings

 

“[…] This matter is before the Court on the motion of the United States to unseal certain pleadings related to grand jury matters in this case. The Court having considered the motion, and there being no objection by counsel for the Defendant, Steven D. Green, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is ordered that the motion of the United States be and it is hereby granted.

 

“The following pleadings shall be unsealed (i) Defendant's Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas Compelling Testimony by Steven D. Green's Father, Stepmother, and Brother; (ii) United States’ Response to Green's Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas to his Father, Stepmother, and Brother; (iii) Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoena Compelling Testimony of Steven Green’s Sister; (iv) Defendant’s Reply to United States’ Response to Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas and Request for a Hearing; (v) Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Court Denying Motion to Quash; and (vi) United States' Response and Objection to Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal of the Indictment, Grand Jury Related Discovery, and Appropriate Sanctions. […]”

 

February 2nd, 2007 - Response to Motion to Dismiss Indictment

 

February 2nd, 2007 -  Motion to Unseal Certain Grand Jury Related Pleadings

 

January 19th, 2007 - Defendant’s Motion for Dismissal of the Indictment

 

“[…] Comes the defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel and moves the Court to compel the production of grand jury related materials, specifically all grand jury subpoenas issued, enforced or pending enforcement post indictment, transcripts of grand jury witnesses, and the instructions given to the grand jury with regard to the ‘special findings’ contained in the indictment. The defendant also moves this Court to order the government to withdraw any grand jury subpoenas that were not returned to the grand jury prior to indictment, to dismiss the indictment and/or for appropriate sanctions to address the governmental abuse and misuse of the powers of the grand jury in this case. […]”

 

The 2006 Steven Green Case File

 

Back to the Mahmudiya Massacre Main Index

Back to the Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II

Back to U.S. Department of Defense

Back to main index

 

 

Website Statistics