The War Profiteers - The Mahmudiya Massacre

“[…] Notice is hereby given that Steven Dale Green, the defendant in the above referenced matter, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the order denying the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss […] and the order denying defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction […].

“This notice supercedes the notice of appeal filed September 8, 2009 […].

September 8^th, 2009 - Notice of Appeal

“[…] Notice is hereby given that Steven D. Green, the defendant in the above-referenced matter, hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the judgment and sentence entered on September 4, 2009. […]”

September 4^th, 2009 - Judgment

“[…] Imprisonment

“The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of Life imprisonment as to each of Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11; 60 months as to Count 2; and 240 months as to Count 17 in the Indictment, to be served concurrently with each other for a sentence of Life imprisonment; additionally a Life sentence is imposed as to each of Counts 13, 14, 15, and 16 and shall be served consecutively to each other and to the sentence imposed on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 17 for a total term of imprisonment of 5 consecutive Life sentences. […]”

May 30^th, 2009 - Sentencing Order

“[…] It is ordered:

“1. That the Sentencing Hearing in the above-styled action is hereby assigned for September 4, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. CDT in Paducah, Kentucky.

“2. That the defendant and defense counsel shall meet with the probation officer for an interview promptly, and in no event later than ten (10) days from the date of this order. It shall be the responsibility of defense counsel to contact the probation officer to ascertain the time and place of the interview, unless defense counsel’s attendance is waived.

“3. That not less than thirty-five (35) days prior to the date of the sentencing hearing, the probation officer shall provide a copy of the presentence investigation report (PSR) to counsel for the parties. Within fourteen (14) days thereafter, counsel shall submit, by letter, all objections to the PSR to the probation officer and opposing counsel. After receiving said objections, the probation officer shall conduct a meeting with counsel, investigate the matters of concern and, if warranted, revise the PSR accordingly.

“4. That not less than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing, the probation officer shall submit the PSR to the undersigned. The PSR shall be accompanied by an addendum setting forth all unresolved objections and the probation officer’s comments in regard thereto. A copy of the revised PSR, together with the addendum, shall be mailed to counsel for the parties.

“5. That not less than ten (10) days prior to the sentencing hearing the parties shall file in the record a memorandum brief in support of their respective positions on any unresolved objections to the PSR.

“6. No less than fourteen (14) days prior to the sentencing hearing, each party shall file in the record a sentencing memorandum addressing unresolved objections, motions, or other relevant issues, discussing both the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors enumerated in 18 USC 3553. No less than seven (7) days prior to the sentencing hearing, each party shall file a response, if necessary. The Probation Office shall also be served with all sentencing memoranda. […]”

May 27^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] This case was called in open court on April 6, 2009 to begin jury selection. Appearing for the United States was Marisa J. Ford, James R. Lesousky, Jr. and Brian D. Skaret, AUSA. Defendant was present with appointed counsel Scott T. Wendelsdorf, Patrick J. Bouldin, Asst. Federal Defenders and Darren C. Wolff, CJA appointed counsel. Terri Turner, Official Court Reporter, recorded the trial.

“Jury selection concluded and a jury was impaneled to hear the case on April 17, 2009 for the first phase of the trial. Testimony commenced on April 27, 2009 and was concluded on May 6, 2009. On May 7, 2009 the jury announced to the Court that a verdict had been reached. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 as reflected in the official Court record.

“The Sentencing phase of the trial commenced May 11, 2009 and concluded on May 20, 2009 and the jury retired to deliberate. On May 21, 2009 the jury announced to the Court that a verdict had been reached in the Sentencing Phase of the trial. The jury returned the following sentence as to Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16: Despite all reasonable efforts to reach unanimous agreement, we, the Jury, are unable to reach a unanimous decision on either a sentence of death or a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

“It is ordered.

“1. For the convenience of the out of country victims and at the request of the United States and with the agreement of the Defendant, a Victim Impact Hearing will be held on May 28, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. EDT in Louisville, Kentucky.

“2. Sentencing for Defendant Steven D. Green is set for September 4, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. CDT in Paducah, Kentucky.

“3. The Defendant is remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal. […]”

May 21^st, 2009 - Special Jury Verdict Form

May 21^st, 2009 - Jury Instructions

“[…] Now that you have heard all the evidence in this case and the arguments of each side, it is my duty to give you instructions as to the law applicable to the issue of whether Steven Dale Green should be punished by death, or be imprisoned for life without the possibility of release. Some of the legal principles that you must apply to this sentencing decision are the same as those you followed in reaching your guilty verdicts. Others, however, are different. I will give you a written copy of these instructions to take into the deliberation room with you. You will also receive a Special Verdict Form to record your findings and the possible decisions you may render. I will be reviewing this form with you at the conclusion of these instructions.

“As reflected by your prior verdict, you have unanimously found the defendant, Steven Dale Green, guilty of the offenses of premeditated murder (Counts 3 - 6), murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated sexual abuse (Counts 7 - 10), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts 13 - 16). By law, Congress has expressly provided that a person who commits these offenses be punished by death or by imprisonment for life without the possibility of release. Because you have found the defendant, Steven Dale Green, guilty of these capital crimes, you must now decide - for each Count - whether justice requires imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment without any possibility of release. […]”

May 19^th, 2009 - Defendant’s Amendments to Jury Instructions Proposed by the Court

“[…] You must consider each Count separately. If, after weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, you unanimously determine that a sentence of death shall be imposed for that Count, then the Court is required to sentence the defendant to death as to that Count. If you unanimously determine that a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release shall be imposed, then the Court is required to sentence the defendant accordingly for that Count. If despite all reasonable efforts and after due deliberation you cannot come to unanimous agreement as to a particular Count, the Court will impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release for that Count.

“If you unanimously determine that a sentence of death shall be imposed for any count, and I therefore impose a sentence of death as to that count, then the defendant will be executed, even if a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release is imposed on any other count or counts. In other words, as far as the end result of what will happen to the defendant - will he be executed or will he serve life imprisonment without release - there is no difference between imposing a death sentence on one count and imposing a death sentence on all counts. […]”

May 14^th, 2009 - Opinion and Order

“[…] Defendant has moved the Court to (1) dismiss and/or preclude sentencing on counts 3-10, alternatively to (2) dismiss and/or preclude sentencing on counts 13-15, and alternatively to (3) permit sentencing on one murder count per victim. The United States has responded […]. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is denied.

“[…] Defendant states that only one capital count per victim may go to the jury because triple exposure for each of the four deaths skews the deliberative process in favor of the death penalty in violation of the 8th Amendment. The Court disagrees. The jury will be instructed to evaluate each charged count separately and independently. The Court is confident that the jury will follow these instructions and that exposure to multiple capital counts will not skew the deliberations unconstitutionally in favor of the death penalty. […] For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered that Defendant’s Motion is denied. […]”

May 12^th, 2009 - U.S.’ Response to Motion to Dismiss/Preclude Sentencing on Multiple Counts

“[…] The United States hereby responds to defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and/or Preclude Sentencing on Multiple Counts that are Based on the Same Murders. In essence, the defendant contends that the premeditated murder, felony murder, and firearm charges are multiplicitous and violate Double Jeopardy. Accordingly, he attempts to force election of counts at sentencing. For the reasons set forth below, and any other authority adduced at a hearing on this matter, the defendant’s motion should be denied. […]”

May 11^th, 2009 - Defendant’s Proposed Preliminary Penalty Phase Instructions

“[…] As reflected by your verdict, you have unanimously found the defendant, Steven Dale Green, guilty of the offenses of premeditated murder (Counts 3-6), murder committed in the perpetration of aggravated sexual abuse (Counts 7-10), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence (Counts 13-26). By law, Congress has expressly provided that a person who commits these offenses be punished by death or by imprisonment for life without the possibility of release. Because you have found the defendant, Steven Dale Green, guilty of these capital crimes, you must now decide-for each count-whether justice requires imposition of the death penalty or life imprisonment without any possibility of release.

“This is a decision left exclusively to the jury. I will not be able to change any decision you reach regarding the death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of release. You, and you alone, will decide whether or not Steven Dale Green should be sentenced to death or sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of release. For this reason, I again stress the importance of your giving careful and thorough consideration to all of the evidence before you. I also remind you of your obligation to strictly follow the applicable law. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law may be-or should be-it would be a violation of your oaths as jurors to base your verdict upon any other view of the law than that given to you in instructions by the Court. […]”

May 11^th, 2009 - Motion to Dismiss and/or Preclude Sentencing on Multiple Counts

“[…] Comes the defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924 (j) (1), 18 U.S.C. § 1111and the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and moves the Court to (1) dismiss and/or preclude sentencing on counts 3 - 6 (§ 1111 premeditated murder) and counts 7-10 (§ 1111 felony murder); alternatively to (2) dismiss and/or preclude sentencing on counts 13 - 15 (§ 924 (c), (j)); and, alternatively to (3) permit sentencing on one murder count per victim. […]”

May 7^th, 2009 - Verdict

“[…] As to Count 1, conspiracy to commit murder, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 2, conspiracy to commit aggravated sexual abuse, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 3, premeditated murder, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 4, premeditated murder, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 5, premeditated murder, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 6, premeditated murder, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 7, murder commited in the perpetration of aggravated sexual abuse, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 8, murder commited in the perpetration of aggravated sexual abuse, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 9, murder commited in the perpetration of aggravated sexual abuse, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 10, murder commited in the perpetration of aggravated sexual abuse, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 11, aggravated sexual abuse, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 13, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 14, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 15, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 16, use of a firearm during a crime of violence, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

“As to Count 17, obstruction of justice, as described in these Instructions, we the jury, find the Defendant, Steven Green: Guilty [X] Not Guilty [ ] […]

May 7^th, 2009 - Jury Instructions

“[…] Counts 3,4,5, and 6 of the Indictment accuse the defendant of premeditated murder in violation of federal law. For you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, you must be convinced that the government has proved each and every one of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

“First: that the defendant unlawfully killed the person named in each Count (Count 3-Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi, Count 4-Hadeel Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi, Count 5-Kassem Hamza Rachid Al-Janabi, and Count 6-Fakhnya Taha Mohsine Al-Janabi). You must consider each Count separately.

“Second: that the defendant killed the person named in the Count with ‘malice aforethought.’

“Third: that the killing of the person in each Count was ‘premeditated’ by the defendant.

“Fourth: that the killing of the person named in each count occurred outside the United States.

“Fifth: that the killing of the person named in each Count occurred while the defendant was a member of the Armed Forces subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice As a matter of law, I instruct you that an active duty member of the Armed Forces is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“Sixth: that the killing of the person named in each Count would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. On this point, I am instructing you that as a matter of law, the crime of premeditated murder is punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

“To kill with ‘malice aforethought’ means an intent at the time of the killing to take the life of another person, either deliberately and intentionally, or to willfilly act with callous and wanton disregard for human life. The government need not prove that the defendant hated the persons killed or felt ill will toward the victims at the time, but the evidence must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted either with the intent to kill or to willfully do acts with callous and wanton disregard for the consequences and which the defendant knew would result in a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm.

“A killing is ‘premeditated’ when it is the result of planning and deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough for the killer, after forming the intent to kill, to be filly conscious of that intent. You should consider all the facts and circumstances preceding, surrounding, and following the killing, which tend to shed light upon the condition of the mind of the defendant, before and after the time of the killing. No fact, no matter how small, no circumstance, no matter how trivial, which bears on the question of malice aforethought and premeditation, should escape your attention. […]”

April 28^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] Now, therefore, it is ordered pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 that said James Paul Barker give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or to provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination as to all matters about which he may be interrogated during the trial in the abovereferenced action.

“This Order shall become effective only if after the date of this Order said James Paul Barker refuses to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination. No testimony or other information compelled under this Order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against James Paul Barker in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with this Order. […]”

April 24^th, 2009 - Application for Court Order to Require Testimony

“[…] Candace G. Hill, Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Kentucky, hereby moves this Court to issue an Order pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 6001, et seq., compelling James Paul Barker to give testimony or provide other information, in the above-referenced action, which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against selfincrimination, as to all matters about which he may be interrogated during the trial and in any further proceedings resulting therefrom or ancillary thereto, and respectfully alleges as follows:

“1. James Paul Barker may be called to testify at the trial in the above matter.

“2. In the judgment of the undersigned, the testimony or other information from said witness may be necessary to the public interest.

“3. In the judgment of the undersigned, said witness is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination. […]”

April 21^st, 2009 - Defendant’s Response to Government’s Motion in Limine

“[…] Every one of the five arguments the government seeks to suppress in this case are indeed important mitigators that the defendant intends to present as reasons the jury should spare his life herein. These mitigators highlight what are in fact unwarranted disparities in the prosecution and punishment of Sgt. Cortez, Spec. Barker, PFC Spielman, and PFC Green. These disparities were not unavoidable. They are, instead, the direct result of a conscious, intentional decision by the United States to impose different criminal provisions, ranges and types of punishment, and adjudicative procedures on equally culpable and situated defendants; to seek the death penalty against one, but not against the others; and to deny any possibility of release for one while imposing parole eligible sentences on the others.

“In prosecuting and punishing Sgt. Cortez, Spec. Barker, PFC Spielman, and PFC Green for the Yusufiyah offenses, the United States could have tried all of them in military court under the UCMJ or all of them in this Court under civilian law. In deciding to treat them differently, the United States has injected unwarranted disparities into this case. The government should not be allowed to prohibit the jury from considering these issues in deciding whether Mr. Green should live or whether he should die. […]”

April 21^st, 2009 - United States’ Motion in Limine

“[…] Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b), and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the United States hereby moves that the Court enter an Order prohibiting the defendant from eliciting, offering, or commenting on the following evidence during the guilt phase of trial on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the charges and the fact-finding duties of the jury, and, alternatively, that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice:

“1. Evidence or argument that the United States could have, or should have, prosecuted the defendant under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

“2. Evidence or argument concerning the reasonableness, wisdom, fairness, or consequences of prosecuting the defendant under Federal criminal law as opposed to the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

“3. Evidence concerning the defendant’s desire and willingness to be tried under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and his efforts to reenlist in the Army for that purpose;

“4. Evidence concerning differences or similarities between Federal criminal law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including with respect to available charges, criminal penalties, sentencing, and eligibility of parole; and

“5. Evidence or argument that only individuals who are in the military or who have military experience, and not civilians, can or should evaluate the defendant’s conduct. […]”

April 3^rd, 2009 - Opinion and Order

“[…] This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion for Court to Order United States to Provide Transportation, Security, Escort and Translation Services for Defense Investigation of Crime Scene […]. The United States has responded […]. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion is denied.

“Defendant moves the Court to enter an order requiring the United States to provide transportation, security, escort and translation services so that Defendant can investigate the crime scene in this case, which is located in Mahmudiyah, Iraq. Defendant argues that an investigation of the crime scene and surrounding area is necessary to provide effective assistance counsel. While at the crime scene, Defendant proposes to conduct interviews with various unidentified family members and neighbors of the victims, along with any Iraqi and United States military personnel familiar with the conditions of the area between the Fall of 2005 and March 2006.

“The United States responds that Defendant’s motion is both unfounded and meant to cause unnecessary delay. Since January 2007, the United States has provided Defendant with approximately two hundred photographs as well as video recordings of the crime scene. The United States has also provided Defendant with the results of all forensic testing performed by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division on materials recovered from the crime scene. Additional photographs of the surrounding area were provided to Defendant in early April 2007. […]”

April 1^st, 2009 - Order

“[…] Defendant having moved the Court to withdraw motion, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is ordered and adjudged that said motion be, and the same hereby is, sustained.

“It is further ordered and adjudged that Document Number 208 Motion for Discovery of Jury Records, […] be, and the same hereby is, withdrawn and stricken from the record herein. […]”

April 1^st, 2009 - Motion for Leave to Withdraw Motion

“[…] Comes the defendant, by counsel, and moves the Court for leave to withdraw his motion filed on March 31, 2009, challenging the jury selection process herein. (R. 208, Motion for Discovery of Jury Records, to Stay Jury Selection Pending Inspection of Records and Evidentiary Hearing and Preliminary Motion to Dismiss Indictment and/or Order Compliance with the Jury Selection and Service Act and the Constitution in Selecting the Petit Jury). […]”

March 31^st, 2009 - Motion for Discovery of Jury Records

“[…] Comes the defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel and pursuant to the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 (‘JSSA’) […], and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, hereby moves the Court to (1) compel the production of jury records; (2) stay jury selection pending inspection of the records and an evidentiary hearing to determine substantial compliance with the JSSA and the Fifth and Sixth Amendment due process, equal protection and fair cross section requirements; and, (3) preliminary motion to dismiss the indictment and compel compliance with the JSSA and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. […]”

March 26^th, 2009 - Media Guidelines

“[…] Interviews: Reporters are prohibited from conducting interviews of anyone in the courthouse. Interviews may be conducted on the sidewalk on Broadway across from the courthouse. […]

“The media may not interview:

“a. Jurors. The prohibition on speaking to jurors stems from the requirement that jurors be free to deliberate without any outside influences. […]

“b. The Judge. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges states that ‘a judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action.’ […]

“c. The defendant. […]”

March 26^th, 2009 - Order

“[…] To ensure that the proceedings in this matter are conducted in an orderly manner, the Court sets forth the following guidelines.

“1. The trial will take place in the second floor courtroom. When trial commences on April 27, 2009, the first floor courtroom will be deemed the overflow courtroom.

“2. Proceedings will begin at 9:00 a.m. each morning and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. each afternoon. […]

“b. The initial voir dire of the jury begins April 6, 2009. Because of the sensitive and personal nature of the initial voir dire, it shall be conducted individually in chambers with only the juror, the court, counsel and assistants, and Defendant present. It is anticipated that the initial individual voir dire may take several days.

“After a panel of approximately seventy (70) jurors have been qualified through the individual voir dire process, follow up voir dire shall be conducted in the second floor courtroom on April 16, 2009, at 9:00 a.m.. Subject to availability, seating shall be in the following priority: jurors, alleged victims’ family and Defendant’s family, credentialed media and the general public. […]”

March 23^rd, 2009 - Proposed Penalty Phase Instructions & Verdict Forms

“[…] Comes the defendant, by counsel, and moves the Court to instruct the jury as follows should he be convicted of one or more of Counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, or 16 herein. Proposed verdict forms have been filed separately. By leave of Court, defendant will separately filed ex parte his proposed guilt phase instructions herein.

“The mitigating factors listed in proposed Instruction No. 4 are illustrative only and are not intended to limit or in any way restrict the mitigating factors that defendant may rely upon in the penalty phase. Defendant is under no obligation to disclose the mitigating factors upon which he intends to rely until there is a finding of guilt on one or more of the capital counts herein.

“Defendant reserves the right to submit additional instructions. […]”

February 17^th, 2009 - United States’ Proposed Jury Instructions

“[…] Comes the United States of America, by counsel, and submits the attached proposed jury instructions for the guilt phase as well as proposed jury instructions and a Special Verdict Form for sentencing.

“The proposed jury instructions for the guilt phase are based on the Sixth Circuit Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions, with additions from the U.S. Code and the pattern criminal jury instructions from the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. The sentencing instructions and Special Verdict Form are based on the Eighth Circuit’s Model Death Penalty Jury Instructions. These are currently the only set of sentencing phase instructions to be approved by a federal circuit court. […]”

January 21^st, 2009 - U.S. Response to Motion for Court to Order U.S. to Provide Transportation

“[…] Comes the United States, by counsel, in response to defendant Steven Green’s Motion for the Court to Order the United States to Provide Transportation, Security, Escort, and Translation Services for Defense Investigation of the Crime Scene. For the reasons and authorities set forth below, and any others that may be adduced at a hearing on this matter, the defendant’s eleventhhour request for an ‘investigative trip’ to Iraq should be denied.

“[…] Three months earlier, in response to a request made by the defendant, the United States produced a spread sheet with the name and last known address of approximately 150 soldiers, each one who had been assigned to the 101^st Airborne, 502^nd Infantry Regiment, 1^st Battalion, Bravo Company, for the time period December 2005 through May 31, 2006. With respect to the defense’s need for information concerning the crime scene, the United States has provided Green with nearly 200 pictures of the crime scene and Green’s nearby traffic control point alone, as well as video recordings of the crime scene and numerous photographs of the surrounding area. The United States also provided the results of all forensic testing that could be performed on material recovered from the subject location by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.

“The United States provided the photographs of the crime scene and TCP2 to the defense in discovery on January 25, 2007, with additional photographs of the area produced in supplemental discovery on April 4, 2007. Video taken by military prosecutors and used during the course of military court martial proceedings was requested by the United States and also produced to defense counsel who have long complained that they were being denied access to materials the Army’s prosecutors were producing to military defense counsel.

“Not surprisingly, given the extensive discovery concerning the defense’s requested witnesses and crime scene information, the defense made no further requests to view the crime scene.

“However, last week, as the Court is well-aware, Green withdrew his notice of an insanity defense. […] And now, thirty-one months after the defendant’s arrest, and fourteen months after the defense requested discovery concerning military witnesses and the crime scene and received what they had requested from the United States, defense counsel suddenly has identified wholly new reasons to take a Court-ordered investigative trip to Iraq to visit the crime scene and surrounding area. […] The defense team now claims to wish to interview unnamed, and apparently unknown, victim family members, neighbors, additional U.S. military personnel, and members of the Iraqi Army, whom the team speculates might provide, among other things, ‘insight regarding the ethnic make-up of the area’ and other ‘cultural insight.’ […] Green does not provide the specific identity of any such witness, their location, or provide any reason to believe such witnesses could be located, would be willing to speak with defense counsel, or to travel to the United States to testify at trial. Indeed, the defendant provides no reasonable grounds from which the Court could conclude that any of these theoretical witnesses exist, that they would be accessible to Green’s defense team, or that they would provide relevant information that could not otherwise be obtained here in the United States. […]”

January 14^th, 2009 - Response to Motion of U.S. To Conduct Mental Examination of Defendant

“[…] Comes the defendant, by counsel, and for his response to the motion of the United States to conduct mental examinations of the defendant, says as follows. The government’s motion is rendered moot by the withdrawal of defendant’s notice pursuant to FRCrP 12.2(a) that he intends to rely on the defense of insanity herein.

“Defendant has amended his notice pursuant to FRCrP 12.2(b) to limit expert testimony regarding mental disease or defect in any penalty phase herein to

“1) an MRI study performed on defendant by the University of Louisville on March 27, 2008, and the interpretation thereof;

“2) interpretation and explanation of medical, psychiatric, and combat stress records provided in discovery by the United States including, but not limited to, the December 21, 2005, report of Dr. Karen Marrs regarding defendant; and

“3) whether the psychiatric care rendered to defendant on or about December 21, 2005, while in the Iraq theater of combat, deviated from acceptable standards of medical care and, if so, the consequences of such

deviation from acceptable practices.

January 14^th, 2009 - Notice of Intent to Introduce Expert Testimony Re Mental Disease

“[…] Comes the defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel, pursuant to Rule 12.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and gives amended notice in writing to the attorney for the government that should defendant be convicted of a capital offense at the trial herein he intends to introduce or may introduce in mitigation of sentence expert testimony relating to 1) an MRI study performed on defendant by the University of Louisville on March 27, 2008, and the interpretation thereof; 2) interpretation and explanation of medical, psychiatric, and combat stress records provided in discovery by the United States including, but not limited to, the December 21, 2005, report of Dr. Karen Marrs regarding defendant; and 3) whether the psychiatric care rendered to defendant on or about December 21, 2005, while in the Iraq theater of combat, deviated from acceptable standards of medical care and, if so, the consequences of such deviation from acceptable practices.

“Defendant does not intend to introduce expert testimony regarding the psychological testing and/or psychiatric evaluations of defendant conducted by Dr. Antonio E. Puente, Ph.D.; Dr. Ruben C. Gur, Ph.D.; or Dr. Pablo Stewart, M.D.

“This amended notice supercedes the notice of intent to introduce expert testimony relating to mental disease or defect filed herein on or about May 15, 2008. […]”

January 14^th, 2009 - Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to Rely upon the Defense of Insanity

“[…] Comes the defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel, and hereby withdraws his previously filed notice pursuant to Rule 12.2(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure stating that at the trial of this action he intends to rely or may rely upon the defense of insanity at the time of the offenses alleged herein. […]”

January 14^th, 2009 - Motion to Preserve Data and Records Re Petit Jury Selection Process

“[…] Comes the Defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Jury Selection and Service Act (28 U.S.C. § 1861 et seq.), and General Order 2005-02 regarding the qualification and random selection of petit jurors in the Western District of Kentucky and respectfully moves the Court to enter an order directing the Clerk of Court to preserve all data and records generated in the process of issuing summonses for prospective petit jurors in the above-styled case. […]”

January 12^th, 2009 - Order & Memorandum Opinion

“[…] This matter having come before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements; the Court having reviewed the record; the Court being sufficiently advised; It is hereby ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Statements is denied. […]

“[…] Here, there is no evidence that the FBI agents’ actions were objectively coercive. Agents Landon and Kelley testified that they had no intention of questioning Defendant. Nor is there any evidence that Defendant’s will was overborne. Defendant is an adult male who has completed his GED. There is no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time he made his statements. Finally, there is no evidence that police misconduct was the crucial motivating factor behind Defendant’s decision to converse with the agents. Defendant does not even argue this point in his brief. Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant’s statements were voluntary. Because his statements were voluntary and made in absence of interrogation, section 3501(d) is applicable. […]”

January 12^th, 2009 - Motion for Court to Order United States to Provide Transportation […]

“[…] Comes the Defendant, Steven Dale Green, by counsel, and moves the Court to order the United States government to provide transportation, security, escort, and translation services for members of the defense team to visit and conduct an investigation at the crime scene in this case.

“The charges in this case stem from incidents occurring in the Iraqi war zone, specifically events that occurred in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, on or about March 12, 2006. It is necessary for defense team members to visit the crime scene and the surrounding area before trial in order to provide an effective defense. […]”

January 11^th, 2009 - United States’ Motion to Conduct Mental Examination of Defendant

“[…] Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests the Court to enter an order (1) requiring the defendant to submit to an examination by an expert or experts of the United States’ choosing; and (2) requiring the exchange between defense experts and experts for the United States of all materials upon which they may rely to form the basis of their opinions, including all medical records and other records of any kind. […]”

The 2008 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