Jonathan Turley
George Washington University Law School
2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
March 29, 2001
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
SH-211 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6475
Re: United States v. CTR1 Daniel M. King.
USN
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This morning The Washington Post ran a story
in which you stated your intention to call a hearing on the handling of
the above referenced case. As lead defense counsel, I was previously
told by your staff to expect to be called as a witness. I understand
that my two detailed military co-counsel, LT Robert Bailey and LT
Matthew Freedus, will also be called to testify.
Neither I, nor my co-counsel, have received
a formal letter to appear before the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence. We are eager to present evidence to the committee in the
closed session. To that end, we wish to begin our work on a written
submission. However, we have been denied access to our classified notes
and files in the case. Thus, while the Navy representatives have access
to their classified notes and files, the defense cannot use our own
material to submit a substantive statement to the Committee. This is
particularly distressing given public statements that the evidence in
this case was "strong." The military judge overseeing the Article 32
proceeding stated in his written recommendation that the evidence in
this case fell short of even probable cause, let alone evidence to
convict. He recommended that the preferred charges be dismissed due to a
lack of corroborating evidence and evidence of coercion by the Navy in
procuring the signed statement by Petty Officer King. Recently, CDR Mark
Newcomb, the military lawyer for the Convening Authority and the
individual who oversaw the prosecution, wrote to me and confirmed that
there was no corroborating evidence in the case that had been withheld
from the defense or the military judge. He stated that any corroborating
evidence in the case was already part of the evidence presented in the
two Article 32 proceedings. Likewise, in the classified proceedings, CDR
Jowers confirmed that she had no other evidence that would be considered
corroborating evidence in the case.
Judge Winthrop reviewed the evidence in this
case and heard all of the witnesses presented by the government. This
includes highly exculpatory evidence that is classified. In the
interests of fairness and full disclosure, I respectfully ask that the
Committee seek the release of the defense notes and files to allow the
defense to prepare a statement to the Committee and to be prepared to
respond to questions on the evidence in the case. This can be easily
done with an order to our security expert, Mr. Billy Cochran, to assist
the defense in the transport and review of the material. I am confident
that a request from the Committee would be honored by the Navy but time
is now of the essence with the rapid approach of the hearing date.
I appreciate your consideration of this
request and I would be willing to answer any questions that you or your
staff may have on the case. Should you have any questions, I can be
reached directly at the law school at 202-994-7001.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Turley
Lead Defense Counsel for Petty Officer Daniel King
cc:
VADM Mobley
LT Bailey
LT Freedus
CTR1 King
|