Nov. 12, 2009 -- Initial Charges Filed. The initial charge filed against Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan alleged 13 specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118, Uniform Code of Military Justice.These are allegations and the accused is considered innocent until and unless proven guilty. The victims in these specifications are all Soldiers, with one victim being a retired Soldier.
Nov. 20, 2009 -- Commander orders Major Hasan into Pre-Trial Confinement. Maj. Hasan’s command ordered Major Hasan into pre-trial confinement in accordance with the Rules for Court-Martial. A neutral and detached military magistrate reviewed the appropriateness of the decision to place him into pre-trial confinement and determined that continued pre-trial confinement was, if fact warranted.A military accused ordered into pretrial confinement for court-martial offenses does not possess any right to post bail. Accordingly, Maj. Hasan remains in a pre-trial confinement status at this time, and he continues to receive all of the medical care that competent medical authorities have deemed necessary.
Dec. 2, 2009 -- Attempted Premeditated Murder Charges Filed. In December, an additional charge was filed against Maj. Hasan for 32 specifications of attempted premeditated murder in violation of Article 80, Uniform Code of Military Justice.As with the initial charge, these are allegations only and the accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. The victims in these specifications include 30 Soldiers and two civilians (two Fort Hood police officers).
Feb. 12, 2010 -- Investigative Officer Grants Hearing Delay. Col. James Pohl, the investigating officer appointed to the Maj. Hasan Article 32 proceedings, granted a defense request to delay the hearing start date. The Article 32 hearing, originally scheduled to begin March 1, was delayed until June 1.
Feb. 23, 2010 -- Major Hasan's defense team meets with special court-martial convening authority. Colonel Morgan Lamb, the special court-martial convening authority met with Maj. Nidal Hasan's defense team Feb. 23., providing the defense team an opportunity to present any matters for Lamb’s consideration before Lamb takes action as a convening authority under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
April 9, 2010 -- Maj. Hasan’s moved to Bell County Jail.Maj. Hasan was released from Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, and transported to the Bell County, Texas, Jail April 9.
June 1, 2010 -- Opening Session for Article 32 Hearing. The opening session of the pre-trial investigation, Article 32 hearing, in the case of Maj. Hasan was held June 1.The opening session addressed preliminary matters.No witness testimony was heard during this opening session.During the session, the investigating officer granted the defense request to delay the Article 32 hearing to Oct. 4 with a possible administrative hearing eventually set for Sept. 16.
June 25, 2010 -- Hearing adjusted to reconvene with witness testimony. The investigating officer adjusted when the pretrial investigation would reconvene from Oct. 4 to Oct. 12 for witness testimony.The reason for the one-week delay was to ensure witness travel and other funding is not affected by the beginning of the federal government’s new fiscal year on Oct. 1.The taking of witness testimony in the Article 32 Hearing is expected to last multiple weeks.
Aug. 12, 2010 -- Evidentury hearing date determined not necessary.The investigating officer for the Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan Article 32 hearing determined today that an August evidentiary hearing date will not be necessary.The pretrial investigation is scheduled to reconvene Oct. 12.
Sept. 16, 2010 -- Pre-trial investigation Article 32 hearing reconvened. The session was called a Status Conference Hearing and address additional preliminary matters. No witness testimony was heard during this session. The government held a status conference hearing to address additional preliminary matters for the pre-trial investigation, Article 32 Hearing, in the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. During the two-hour session, three motions were made by the defense to the investigating officer Col. James Pohl:
1. Motion to exclude autopsy evidence was denied.
2. Motion to close hearing to media and the public was denied.
3. Motion to delay hearing to develop mitigation evidence will be addressed at a later date.
4. Col Pohl ruled on this motion Oct. 4 allowing a one-week delay from Oct. 30 to Nov. 7.
Oct. 12, 2010 -- Pre-trial investigation Article 32 hearing reconvened Oct. 12-29, Nov. 8-18. The scheduled sessions heard both prosecution and defense witness testimony. Prosecutors concluded their portion after eight days of testimony from 56 prosecution witnesses.Prosecutors were able to complete their portion, originally scheduled for completion Oct. 29, more than a week early because the pace of the proceeding was faster than anticipated.Lt. Col. Kris R. Poppe, military defense attorney, declined to present any evidence. Prosecution declined to provide any other evidence. Neither side offered a closing statement. Colonel Pohl concluded the Article 32 hearing at 9:06 a.m.
Nov. 16, 2010 -- Article 32 investigating officer completes his recomendations for Maj Hasan case. Col. James L. Pohl the Article 32 investigating officer completed his recommendation on findings of the Article 32 hearing for Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan.
Jan. 25, 2011 -- Delay Granted to Defense in Major Hasan Case. The charges pending against Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan remain with Col. Morgan Lamb, the special court martial convening authority, for his disposition decision or recommendation.At the request of Major Hasan's defense counsels, Colonel Lamb granted a delay in the case until Feb. 23, 2011, when defense will meet with Colonel Lamb and present any matters they wish the colonel to consider.After that meeting, Colonel Lamb will decide what action to take or recommendation to make as a convening authority in the case.
March 4, 2011 -- Major Hasan's Special Court Martial Convening Authority delivered recommendation to III Corps.Prosecutors provided to defense counsel Col. Morgan Lamb's recommendation for disposition concerning the charges pending against Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan. Defense counsel publicly released those recommendations. Colonel Lamb recommended that the charges pending against Hasan be sent to a general court-marital authorized to consider capital punishment.Lamb's recommendation was non-binding, and the eventual decision concerning the disposition of charges against Hasan will take into account all appropriate factors while observing both the rights of the accused and the victims of the alleged crimes.
May 19, 2011 -- Major Hasan's defense holds meeting with general court-martial convening authority. At the request of Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan's defense counsel, a meeting between the defense and Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, III Corps and Fort Hood commander, was held May 19.Campbell approved the meeting to ensure defense counsel had the opportunity to present all matters for consideration to him. Campbell serves as the general court-martial convening authority.The charges pending against Hasan have been forwarded to the general for disposition. Campbell's decision will be made sometime after his meeting with Hasan's defense counsel. No deadline has been set for Campbell's decision.
July 6, 2011 -- Major Hasan is referred to general court-martial. Lieutenant General Donald M. Campbell, Jr., made his disposition decision in United States v. Major Nidal M. Hasan. Campbell is the commander of III Corps and Fort Hood and in that capacity serves as a general court-martial convening authority. After considering all matters submitted by defense counsel and considering other appropriate matters, including the recommendations of Hasan's chain of command, the Article 32 Investigating Officer, and his own legal advisor, Campbell has referred the case to a general court-martial for trial.The court-martial is authorized to consider death as an authorized punishment.
July 20, 2011 -- Fort Hood's Chief Circuit Judge holds arraignment for Major Hasan. The arraignment for the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was held at 2:30 p.m. July 20, 2011, in the Fort Hood courtroom.At the arraignment, Col. Gregory Gross, Fort Hood's chief circuit judge, discussed the rights held by the accused, such as his right to counsel.Colonel Gross made an inquiry on the record regarding detailed military counsel and civilian counsel. Major Hasan indicated he is satisfied with detailed counsel and desires no specific military counsel. He has released his civilian counsel, Mr. J.P. Galligan.The judge explained Major Hasan’s right to be tried before an officer panel, and Major Hasan elected the same.Colonel Gross explained that prosecution must prove a capitol count, an aggravating factor, and that the aggravating factor must outweigh mitigating factors. Each must be decided by a unanimous vote by the court martial panel.Major Hasan, by counsel, waived reading of the charges and deferred entering a plea and further motions.Colonel Gross will issue an order setting deadlines for motions from both sides.The judge explained that the defense requested delay until March 5, 2012, is granted and that case will be docketed for that day.
Oct. 27, 2011 -- Military judge hears pre-trial motions for Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, clarified some administrative matters and then heard arguments from both sides regarding pending motions.The administrative matters involved an order to produce documents, a trial schedule and the judge's answers to questions posed by Hasan's defense counsel regarding the judge's ability to preside over the case. Gross issued an order to Yahoo! to produce documents that had been requested by the prosecution. The defense did not object to the order.Gross also discussed the trial schedule he is developing, and it will be published once developed. Gross clarified his answers to the defense counsel's questions, which pertain to the personal impact of the shooting on November 5, 2009 on his self or his family members.The defense counsel will review the Gross' answers before deciding whether to challenge him for cause as being unable to fairly preside over the case.The motions presented by Hasan's defense counsel were requests for expert assistance prior to the trial. The defense team requested that the Fort Hood General Court Martial Convening Authority provide funding to hire a media consultant expert and a panel (jury) selection expert.Hasan's defense counsel assert that the experts are necessary to determine the impact extensive media coverage and other factors affecting the military community will have on unfairly influencing the opinions of potential panel members, and then to properly identify and excuse those panel members that cannot be fair and unbiased.The prosecutors argued that such experts are unnecessary additions to the defense team, as the attorneys should be able to provide the same assistance themselves. Gross deferred ruling on the motions, and he has not indicated when such a ruling may be made.The next hearing is scheduled to take place during the week of Nov. 28 with the trial scheduled to begin on March 5, 2012.
Nov. 30, 2011 -- Major Hasan Nov. 30 hearing statement. In the case of U.S. vs Maj. Nidal Hasan, the judge, Col. Gregory Gross, listened to arguments from the defense attorneys and prosecutors regarding several motions pending before the court.At a previous hearing on Oct. 27, Gross had answered questions from the defense attorneys pertaining to his personal impact of the shooting at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, 2009. Today the defense attorneys asked more questions and requested Gross to recuse himself from the trial because of the appearance of bias as a judge. Although Gross was present at Fort Hood the day of the shooting, he says he had no specific knowledge of the events as they transpired and that he has distanced himself from any news or discussion of the incident. Gross denied the defense motion to recuse himself, and he remains as the judge in the case.The defense attorneys then argued two separate motions regarding Articles I and III of the U.S. Constitution, alleging that Hasan's fundamental right to life will be violated if he is prosecuted and sentenced to death in a military court-martial. This case is being prosecuted as a capital case, meaning the death penalty is a possible sentence if Hasan is found guilty, and under the Constitution certain procedures must be followed to ensure his rights are protected. The military court-martial process is separate and distinct from any civilian court in the U.S. and procedures are created by Congress and the President in a different manner. The defense argued that these differences deny military defendants the same protection as civilian defendants and therefore violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Therefore, the defense has requested that this case not be tried as a capital case.Gross did not rule on the two motions about Hasan's Constitutional rights. He also has not yet ruled on the two motions argued at the last hearing pertaining to expert assistance for the defense team. He has not indicated when a ruling may be made, and the next hearing is not yet scheduled.
Feb. 2, 2012 -- Major Hasan Article 39A Hearing statement. Colonel Gregory Gross, the judge for the court-martial of Maj. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood, re-set the trial date to June, 12, 2012. Previously scheduled to begin on March 5, 2012, the defense attorneys requested a delay so that they can better prepare for the trial. The judge agreed that one of the defense experts, a specialist in mitigation evidence, needs more time to complete his review of Hasan's background. The judge also agreed that the defense team needs more time to sift through the volumes of documents related to this case.The judge considered other motions and requests from both the defense and prosecution teams in today's hearing. The judge ruled on motions presented by the defense attorneys last October, where they requested expert assistance on the effect of pre-trial publicity and for help in selecting panel (jury) members. The judge denied the pre-trial publicity expert, but granted the panel selection expert. This expert will assist the defense attorneys in questioning the panel members before the court-martial to determine which members should be excused from sitting on the panel.The defense also filed a motion to compel the prosecution to provide them with notes from meetings and conversations between the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other high-ranking officials in the aftermath of the shooting on Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. The defense attorneys have requested the notes so they can determine if any matter was discussed which may have unlawfully influenced the independent discretion of Hasan's chain of command to prosecute him. The prosecution opposed the motion, saying that the Army officers who have taken action in this prosecution were under no influence from higher officials to do so. The judge reserved ruling on this matter until a later date.Another motion considered was the prosecution team's request that investigation reports prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense regarding Hasan's military career be protected from further dissemination by the defense attorneys. The defense attorneys oppose such a protective order and requested that the judge allow them time to prepare a response to the prosecution's motion. Once the judge receives the response, he will hear arguments from both sides before ruling on the motion.The judge commented on a matter that had been discussed at the last hearing in November. The defense attorneys have requested they be allowed to talk privately with the Commanding General of Fort Hood and the Staff Judge Advocate who gives legal advice to the Commanding General, to inquire into their qualifications to proceed with this case as a capital murder trial.The prosecution asserts that such private access is unnecessary, and asked the judge for more time to prepare a response to the defense request. The judge granted them more time, and he will not rule on this matter until he considers the prosecution's response.The judge will prepare a docketing order based on the new trial date, and he may allow both sides to conduct hearings or conferences with him on a weekly basis as the trial date grows near. He will allow both sides to submit questions to the pool of potential panel members before they are selected for this trial.Hasan is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
April 4, 2012 -- Major Hasan Article 39A Hearing statement. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, clarified some administrative matters and then heard arguments from both sides regarding pending motions.The administrative matters included the appointment of Maj. Joseph Marcee for the defense replacing Capt. Justin Oshana who was released from duty earlier this year.In a newer request, the defense counsel requested a continuance until October, which will be litigated at a 10 a.m. April 10 Article 39a hearing.The judge granted the defense request for the appointment of an expert in forensic pathology.He denied defense requests to set aside the capital referral.He issued a protective order for Department of Defense and Army material and denied a defense request to modify the protective order.He denied a government request to pre-admit numerous pieces of evidence.He ordered the production of three witnesses for a defense motion to appoint a victim outreach specialist. Those witnesses are scheduled to be produced and the motion will be litigated on April 10.The judge denied a defense motion to interview the convening authority and the staff judge advocate.
April 10, 2012 -- Military judge rules on April 10 pre-trial motions in Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, heard arguments from both sides regarding pending motions April 10 in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here.The first motion was the defense's request to appoint a victim outreach specialist. A Defense-Initiated Victim Outreach specialist was requested by the defense and would be appointed by the court to reach out to victim-survivors of capital crimes and act as the link between the victim-survivor and the defense team. After hearing from witnesses and argument from both sides, Gross denied the defense motion.In the second motion, the defense counsel requested a continuance until October 9, 2012.Defense counsel argued that the delay is necessary because of the large volume of documents and other evidence already delivered to the defense and the anticipated continued disclosure of additional documents and evidence by the prosecution.Government counsel argued that the defense has had ample time to review the evidence and requested that the defense counsel file any further motions as soon as possible.Gross did not make a decision on whether to grant the motion for a continuance. He indicated that he will schedule another hearing in the near future at which time he will issue his decision.Gross also denied a defense motion for the production of discovery containing communications between the President of the United States and other parties. This motion had been filed and litigated at an earlier hearing.
April 18, 2012-- Military judge sets new trial date for Major Hasan case. Military Judge Col. Gregory A. Gross announced his ruling on the defense continuance request in United States vs. Major Nidal M. Hasan April 17.He partially granted the defense request for a delay to a new trial date of Aug. 20.Defense counsel had sought to delay to commencement of trial from June 12 until Oct. 9.Prosecutors opposed any further delay in the trial date.On Aug. 20, the parties will begin to seat the jury, which is called a panel in the military.Gross will also likely hold other pretrial hearings between now and Aug. 20 and those will be announced as scheduled.
June 6, 2012 - Military judge schedules next pre-trial hearing for Major Hasan case. The military judge in the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has scheduled a half-day administrative hearing at 10 a.m. June 8 in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. Both the prosecution and defense will go on the record in open court to litigate pending motions and discuss administrative matters. Pending motions before the court include the resolution of discovery matters and whether the accused should receive at government expense the expert services of a neurologist. Other matters may also be filed for litigation at the hearing.
June 8, 2012 - Military judge delays pre-trial motions in Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross delayed pre-trial motions in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. The military judge stated on the record that the accused appeared in court with a beard in violation of Army Regulation 670-1 and Rules for Court-Martial 804(e)(1), specifically paragraph 1-8(c). The military judge stated that the appearance of the accused was a disruption to the court proceedings. As a result, the military judge delayed pre-trial motions until the near future, when either a closed circuit feed can be set up for the accused to watch the hearings from outside the court room or the accused complies with court order to appear with proper military grooming standards. Defense indicated their intent to file a request for exception to policy for religious accommodation to a higher command. The motions scheduled for today, to include a new request for a further continuance, resolution of discovery matters and whether the accused should receive at government expense the expert services of a neurologist were delayed until the next Article 39a hearing.
June 19, 2012 - Military judge considers pre-trial motions in Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, listened to argument on several pre-trial motions in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. The military judge stated on the record that the accused again appeared in court with a beard, and continues to be in violation of Army Regulation 670-1 and Rules for Court-Martial 804(e) (1). The military judge stated that the appearance of the accused continues to disrupt the court proceedings and that the accused will view court proceedings via a closed-circuit feed in a trailer adjacent to the courthouse. The judge further stated, unless the accused conforms to Army regulations or is granted an exception to policy for religious accommodation by the Department of the Army, he will continue to view the proceedings via closed-circuit feed. The defense indicated that they would seek a writ of prohibition and a stay of the proceedings from the Army Court of Criminal Appeals based on the judge's ruling that excludes Hasan from the courtroom. Other motions argued and considered by the judge include a request for a further continuance, resolution of discovery issues, whether the accused should receive at government expense the expert services of a neurologist, a request to compel production of documents used in selecting the jury, and a request to allow the defense to interview the III Corps Commanding General and his Staff Judge Advocate. The judge granted the defense motion to provide an expert neurologist to the defense team. The judge is expected to rule on other motions argued at today's hearing at the next Article 39a hearing currently scheduled for 10 a.m. on June 29.
In other events, Lt. Col. Kris Poppe, lead defense attorney for Hasan released the following statement on Hasan's behalf following today's court proceedings: On July 28, 2011, Maj. Nidal Hasan sent a letter to John Galligan in which he stated, "Please be clear, as of July 20, 2011, at 2:30 p.m. you were no longer my attorney and do not represent me in any capacity." According to Poppe, that decision has not changed. Since July 20, 2011, any comments made by Galligan about this case are for his own purposes and not on behalf of Hasan.
June 29, 2012 - Military judge denies continuance request and rules on other pending motions in the Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, denied the defense request for a further continuance of trial until December 2012 and ordered that the trial will begin on Aug. 20, 2012, in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. The military judge also submitted to questioning from defense counsel concerning whether he was biased against the accused, and then ruled that he was neither actually biased and that no implied bias existed. After announcement of that ruling, defense counsel stated their intention to appeal the military judge's failure to recuse himself to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. In one further matter, the military judge ruled that III Corps and Fort Hood's Commanding General and his Staff Judge Advocate must make themselves available for a joint interview by defense counsel concerning the referral of this case. The accused was not present in court today and continued to view court proceedings via a closed-circuit feed in a trailer adjacent to the courthouse. The military judge announced that the accused was still not clean shaven as required by Army Regulations, that the Department of the Army had declined to grant the accused a religious accommodation for the wearing of the beard, and that the Army Court of Criminal Appeals refused to hear the accused's appeal of the judge's decision to remove him from the courtroom because of the beard. The judge is expected to rule on other pending motions and take up any new motions at the next Article 39a hearing currently scheduled for 10 a.m. on July 6th.
July 6, 2012- Military judge denies and grants pending motions in the Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, ruled on several matters in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here, including pending discovery motions brought by defense. The judge partially granted a defense motion seeking background material on the selection of potential panel members and granted defense access to a previously conducted legal review. The judge, however, denied defense motions seeking to interview a member of the Department of the Army's Public Affairs Office concerning Vocus (commercially-produced software used to analyze press reports) and also denied defense access to government expert Evan Kohlmann's personal library. The accused was not present in court today and continued to view court proceedings via a closed-circuit feed in a location adjacent to the courtroom. At the next Article 39a hearing, currently scheduled for 10 a.m. on July 12, the judge is expected to rule on other pending motions and will hear argument over a proposed written questionnaire for potential panel members to answer before reporting for panel duty. The judge will also take up any new matters raised by the parties.
July 12, 2012- Military judge rules on Panel Questionnaire in the Major Hasan case. In the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, held a hearing today to discuss a proposed written pretrial panel member questionnaire. After discussing several proposed written questions with defense counsel and the prosecution, the judge announced what questions would be and could not be included on the questionnaire. The questionnaire will likely be sent to potential panel members this week, and the judge set a July 20 deadline for the questionnaire's return. Additionally, the judge noted that the Army Court of Criminal Appeals had refused to hear a defense appeal of the judge's ruling not to recuse himself from the case. The judge also discussed, but did not yet rule on, his review of material from the FBI and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concerning whether the reviewed material was relevant to the proceedings. The accused was not present in court today and continued to view court proceedings via a closed-circuit feed adjacent to the courthouse.
July 25, 2012 - Military judge holds contempt hearing, rules on other pending matters in Hasan case. In an Article 39A hearing July 25 in the case of U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Military Judge Col. Gregory Gross began the morning with a contempt hearing for Hasan's failure to comply with Army grooming standards and appear in court clean shaven. Gross found the accused in contempt and fined him $1,000, the maximum amount the court could impose as a fine under the court-martial contempt statute. After conducting the contempt hearing, the accused refused to voluntarily shave and watched the remainder of the hearing outside the courtroom via a close-circuit television feed. The military judge further informed the accused that if he did not voluntarily shave, Gross would likely compel a shaving sometime in the future so the accused could personally attend forthcoming court-martial hearings. The remainder of today's hearing focused on discovery and expert matters. Gross stated he would review for relevancy an unredacted copy of the recently released William Webster report to the FBI's director. Gross also requested an update on whether the Senate maintained any notes or summary of interviews the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs may have taken or made in support of the their report on the Fort Hood shooting. The judge also deferred ruling on whether the defense should have access to military investigations taught in a class at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va. The judge took under advisement and deferred ruling on defense requested experts in religious conversion and social science methodology. The judge did authorize further government funding for already appointed defense experts in jury selection and mitigation. Finally, the judge also found that federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters raised under 50 United States Code Section 1806, and stated he would sign an order transferring any such matter to the federal district court in Waco.
August 7, 2012 - Military judge schedules next pre-trial hearing for Major Hasan case. The military judge in the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has scheduled a half-day administrative hearing at 10 a.m. Aug. 9 in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. Both the prosecution and defense will go on the record in open court to litigate pending motions and discuss expert witnesses. Media who plan to cover the hearing must register here. On the date for the event, satellite trucks should report to the Fort Hood Clarke Road Gate on West Highway 190 at 6:30 a.m. Truck registration ends at 7 a.m. All others should check in to the Fort Hood visitor's center, from 8-9 a.m. for final registration. All media should be prepared to show a U.S. driver's license with photo and an accredited press badge with photo.
August 9, 2012 - Military Judged heard evidence and ruled on several other motions in Article 39A hearing for Major Hasan case. Military Judge Col. Gregory A. Gross in the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan began today's hearing with another contempt proceeding as he has done in the previous two hearings. Hasan appeared again in court today with a beard, and after hearing argument from Hasan's counsel, the judge held Hasan in contempt for his failure to be clean shaven and fined him $1,000. The majority of today's hearing concerned whether one of the government's experts could testify at trial. After admitting several pieces of documentary evidence and hearing extensive testimony from the expert, Mr. Evan Kohlmann, and from a defense expert, Dr. James Richardson, Gross indicated he would issue a decision at a later time. Gross heard other evidence and announced the following rulings on defense motions to compel the production of documents and requests for experts. Gross granted in part a defense motion concerning the panel selection process. He ruled that government and defense attorneys would alternate which side will go first when questioning individual prospective panel members. Gross also granted a defense motion regarding the presentation of an opening statement prior to any sentencing proceeding that may occur. Generally, government and defense counsel do not present opening statements at a sentencing proceeding. In this case, however, Gross ruled that each side could present an opening statement if the case goes to a sentencing proceeding. Gross also denied a defense request to compel the production of an expert in media analysis so that this expert could testify at a motion for change of venue. Gross also denied a defense request to change the panel members selected to hear the case, and denied a defense motion to change the venue of the trial. Gross reserved ruling on a renewed request for a delay in the start date for this trial. Gross set the next hearing for 10 a.m. Aug. 14. The accused, Major Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
August 13, 2012 - Military judge schedules next pre-trial hearing for Major Hasan case. The military judge in the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has scheduled a half-day administrative pre-trial hearing at 10 a.m. Aug. 14 in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. Both the prosecution and defense will go on the record in open court to litigate pending motions and discuss various issues including any pending discovery issues and other matters either side may raise to the judge for resolution.
August 14, 2012 - Military Judge heard evidence and ruled on several other motions in Article 39A hearing for Major Hasan case. Military Judge Col. Gregory A. Gross in the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan began the Aug. 14 hearing with another contempt proceeding as he has done in the previous three hearings. Hasan appeared again in court with a beard, and after hearing argument from Hasan's counsel, the judge held Hasan in contempt for his failure to be clean shaven and fined him $1,000. Gross also heard and ruled on several motions. He denied a defense motion to exclude the testimony of one of the government's experts, Evan Kohlmann. He also denied a defense request for a delay in the court martial until Oct. 9. He denied a defense motion to have the government produce daily transcripts of the proceedings during the jury selection process and denied a defense request for a special instruction regarding note taking by panel members during the court martial. He heard argument but reserved ruling on defense motions regarding the conduct of jury selection and a motion regarding prosecutorial misconduct. At the end of the Aug. 14 hearing, Gross announced the parties, including the accused, would be back in court twice more this week. Court will reconvene at 1 p.m. Aug. 15 and again at 10 a.m. Aug. 17 to litigate remaining issues and for the accused to enter his pleas to the charged offenses. The accused is presumed innocent unless and until he is proven guilty in a court of law.
August 15, 2012 - Appellate court orders Hasan court martial stayed until further notice. Military Judge Col. Gregory A. Gross in the case of United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan began Aug. 15 with the accused appearing unshaven in court. Gross again held a contempt hearing and fined the accused $1,000. Gross next considered briefings from both parties and ruled that Article 45(b) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice is neither unconstitutional nor infringes upon Hasan's rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Article 45(b) prohibits a military judge from receiving a guilty plea from an accused to any offense for which the accused could be sentenced to death. Additionally, Gross denied a defense motion that the general court martial convening authority, Lt. Gen. Donald Campbell, Jr., and his Staff Judge Advocate, Col. Stuart Risch, should be disqualified from their roles in this case. Gross had next scheduled for Hasan to enter pleas to the charged offenses of thirteen allegations of premeditated murder and thirty-two allegations of attempted premeditated murder. Before that occurred, however, the parties and the court received an order from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The CAAF ordered the proceedings stayed until further order by that court so the appellate court could consider if Gross can order the accused forcibly shaved. The CAAF is the highest level appellate court in the military, is made up of five civilian judges, and oversees military justice for all armed forces.
August 17, 2012 - Hasan court martial stayed until further notice. Hasan court martial stayed until further notice. The Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces stayed all proceedings in the Maj. Nidal M. Hasan court-martial to resolve whether Hasan can be compelled to be clean shaven for court proceedings. An unshorn beard violates Army regulations. Colonel Gregory Gross, the court martial judge, has previously held Hasan's beard disrupts the court's proceedings and ruled Hasan in contempt of court on five different occasions. At the time of the stay, the court had scheduled for Hasan to enter pleas. The prosecutors and defense also were to litigate remaining issues before they were to start panel selection Aug. 20. Whenever the CAAF lifts the stay, Gross will reschedule these matters. The CAAF had previously rejected a defense appeal that Gross should have disqualified himself because of an alleged bias against Hasan. In other matters, the federal district court in Waco, Texas, ruled this week that no evidence will be suppressed in the Hasan court-martial pursuant to 50 United States Code Section 1806. This federal statute deals with classified evidence collection measures. Defense counsel for Hasan has also appealed Gross's denial of their request for a further continuance until Oct. 9 to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. That court has yet to rule on the appeal. Hasan court martial stayed until further notice. The Court of Appeal for the Armed Forces stayed all proceedings in the Maj. Nidal M. Hasan court-martial to resolve whether Hasan can be compelled to be clean shaven for court proceedings. An unshorn beard violates Army regulations. Colonel Gregory Gross, the court martial judge, has previously held Hasan's beard disrupts the court's proceedings and ruled Hasan in contempt of court on five different occasions. At the time of the stay, the court had scheduled for Hasan to enter pleas. The prosecutors and defense also were to litigate remaining issues before they were to start panel selection Aug. 20. Whenever the CAAF lifts the stay, Gross will reschedule these matters. The CAAF had previously rejected a defense appeal that Gross should have disqualified himself because of an alleged bias against Hasan. In other matters, the federal district court in Waco, Texas, ruled this week that no evidence will be suppressed in the Hasan court-martial pursuant to 50 United States Code Section 1806. This federal statute deals with classified evidence collection measures. Defense counsel for Hasan has also appealed Gross's denial of their request for a further continuance until Oct. 9 to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. That court has yet to rule on the appeal.
August 30, 2012 - Judge holds Major Hasan in contempt again, rules on several motions, sets A39a hearing for Thursday. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan was back in court Aug. 30 where his defense counsel and government prosecutors argued various matters to Col. Gregory Gross, court-martial judge. The proceeding began with the judge holding a contempt hearing for Hasan appearing at the court-martial wearing a beard. Hasan spoke in his own defense before Gross. The judge found Hasan in contempt of court for refusing to shave, fining him $1,000 the maximum fine allowed for contempt. After the contempt hearing an Article 39a (pre-trial) hearing was held. Defense argued to limit victim impact and other types of sentencing evidence in the case and to change the rules over how the court-martial will consider such evidence. Prosecutors argued that defense was trying to shield Hasan from his own alleged misconduct. Gross deferred ruling on these matters. Defense also argued to Gross that it was premature for him to decide what exhibits the government could use in its opening statement and what evidence the government could use to prove premeditation. Gross agreed, and put these matters on hold until further notice. Gross also set another Article 39a hearing 10 a.m. Sept. 6 for the parties to present evidence and argument concerning Hasan's claim that he should be allowed, as a matter of religious freedom, to wear a beard while in uniform at his court-martial.
September 5, 2012 - Judge sets hearing in Major Hasan court-martial. The trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, in U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan has set the next pretrial hearing in the case for 10 a.m. Sept. 6 at the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. Pending matters before the court include a hearing to determine whether a federal religious freedom law allows Hasan to wear a beard during his trial. Should Gross order that Hasan be forcibly shaved, the defense will have an opportunity to appeal that decision to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals before Hasan will enter his pleas. Should Gross allow Hasan to keep his beard, Hasan will enter his pleas and the trial would begin shortly thereafter.
September 6, 2012 - Military Judge orders Major Hasan to shave or be forcibly shaved. The trial judge, Col. Gregory Gross, in U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan ordered Hasan, the accused, to shave his beard before proceeding with further hearings or trial Sept. 6 here.Gross heard arguments by the defense and prosecution on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and whether the federal act supports the accused right to keep his beard.Gross determined that RFRA does apply to court martial proceedings but ultimately ruled that the defense failed to meet their burden to prove that the beard should be allowed.The defense argued that forcing Hasan to shave would leave him in a "perilous religious state." They argued that Hasan has sincere and genuine religious motives for growing a beard, which were further strengthened this year.The government argued that Hasan is attempting to thwart in court identification by witnesses and is using the beard to manifest an outward desire to associate himself with the Mujahedeen, a radical Islamic movement.A stay was not placed on the case but the defense is expected to appeal the decision with the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), an intermediate appellate court. This will prevent the parties from actually appearing in court until a final appellate decision is rendered. In the meantime, both parties can continue to do business with the trial court, but are not expected to appear again in court until the RFRA issue is fully resolved.Gross also ruled on a defense motion seeking to disqualify a prosecutor. Gross found that no prosecutorial misconduct had occurred therefore no disqualification was required.No further hearings are set for the moment.
October 3, 2012 - Appellate court sets oral argument in Major Hasan appeal. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals set oral argument for the various appeals filed by Maj. Nidal M.Hasan over his refusal to appear clean shaven while in uniform at his court martial for 1 p.m. Oct. 11. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals is located at Fort Belvoir, Va., just outside the nation's capital.
October 11, 2012 - Army appellate court hears argument in Hasan appeal. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals heard arguments Oct. 11 over whether Maj. Nidal M. Hasan can wear a beard at his upcoming court martial. Seven appellate judges from the ACCA, all high-ranking military officers, listened to oral arguments for more than an hour. The primary issue before the court is whether a federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows Hasan to wear a beard while in uniform at his court martial for 13 premeditated murders and 32 attempted premeditated murders. The trial judge of the court martial, Col. Gregory Gross, previously ruled that Hasan failed to prove his beard is an expression of a sincerely held religious belief. Because of that finding, Gross ruled that the RFRA does not provide Hasan any protection and that Hasan must shave his beard. That ruling resulted in the appeal to the ACCA.In addition to the RFRA issue, the appellate court also listened to the parties argue over what powers a military trial jjudge has over a court martial and if Gross's orders in this case showed a bias against Hasan. The ACCA has not stated when they will issue a ruling on this appeal. Any ruling from the ACCA may also be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The ACCA sits at Fort Belvoir, Va., just outside the nation's capital. The accused, Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
December 3, 2012 - Military judge removed from Major Hasan court martial. In an opinion dated Dec. 3, the highest military appellate court ordered the removal of Col. Gregory Gross, trial judge in the Maj. Nidal M. Hasan court martial, here for the appearance of bias.The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which sits in Washington, D.C., said in its 10-page opinion that because of a variety of factors, a reasonable person “would harbor doubts about the military judge’s impartiality.”The court did not say that the trial judge was actually biased, but instead ordered the removal for the appearance of bias. The court also set aside the six previous contempt convictions against Hasan.The CAAF did not issue any ruling concerning whether Hasan has a right to wear his beard under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.The court reasoned that given their order to remove the trial judge, “We need not and do not decide if and how RFRA might apply to Appellant’s [Hasan’s] beard.”Given the appellate court’s ruling, a new trial judge will be detailed to the court martial for Hasan. That judge will then decide when the case goes back on the record in open court.As of this time, a new judge has not been detailed.The accused, Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
December 4, 2012 - New Trial Judge. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces appointed Col. Tara Osborn as the new trial judge in the Maj. Nidal M. Hasan court martial.
December 18, 2012 - New military judge holds pre-trial hearing for MAJ Hasan case. The new military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, in the United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan court martial, held a one-hour pre-trial hearing to update her on the current status of the case at 10 a.m. Dec. 18. Both prosecutors and defense counsel discussed matters previously litigated in earlier court hearings, which the court may now choose to relook or that may require future litigation. Osborn asked both parties to submit a proposed schedule by Dec. 28 to litigate these matters beginning in January 2013. Osborn will inform the parties of the next hearing sometime before the end of the year. Osborn also briefly discussed Hasan's beard at the hearing, asking Hasan if he wore the beard of his own free will and if he agreed to waive issues surrounding the beard and panel selection. Hasan answered both questions in the affirmative. The accused, Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
January 30, 2013 - In a nearly five-hour hearing, the trial judge in the case of the U.S. vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, ruled from the bench on several defense motions to reconsider previous rulings and set the next pretrial hearing date in the court-martial for Feb. 27. Military Judge Col. Tara Osborn heard arguments from defense counsel and prosecutors concerning if Hasan should receive at government expense a media analysis expert and an expert to interact with crime victims. Osborn upheld the previous decisions and ruled against the defense on employing both experts at government expense. Osborn also upheld the constitutionality of how the military decides whether a case should be tried as capital, after defense challenged the procedures set forth in Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, the parties addressed whether Osborn should modify or lift protective orders issued on Department of Defense and Department of the Army investigations into the Fort Hood Shooting. Osborn said she would issue her decision on this matter in the near future. Osborn said the next hearing date will begin Feb. 27 and last up to three days should that amount of time be necessary. Issues to be litigated at the February hearing include: a) Whether a change of venue is appropriate, b) whether the convening authority must select new panel members, and c) under what circumstances prosecutors may present aggravating circumstances during presentencing proceedings. Osborn will also reconsider of the admissibility of Evan Kohlmann's expert testimony. A hearing was first held on this issue in August 2012. The accused, Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
February 25, 2013 - Military judge schedules next pre-trial hearing for Major Hasan case. The presiding military judge, Col. Tara Osborn, will hold a pretrial hearing in the United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan court martial at 10 a.m. Feb. 27 in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here. Motions expected for argument include a defense request to change venue, a defense request to change venire (venire are the individuals that make up the potential panel members) and several defense requests concerning the procedural rules that apply during sentencing proceedings. A hearing concerning the defense request to reconsider the admissibility of Evan Kohlmann's expert testimony will take place 10 a.m. March 20 in the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center here.
February 28, 2013 - Military judge sets trial date for Major Hasan case. Col. Tara Osborn, the presiding judge in United States vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, held a half-day pretrial hearing Feb. 28 here. Osborn ruled from the bench that the military's capital sentencing procedures comply with all constitutional requirements and declined a defense request to put in place special sentencing procedures. Osborn also took evidence and heard arguments on defense motions to move the trial from Fort Hood and to disqualify all Army officers from sitting on a military panel in this case because of exposure to pretrial publicity. A panel is the military's version of a jury. Osborn reserved rulings on these matters and stated she would announce her rulings in due course. At the conclusion of the hearing, Osborn informed the parties that she would like to start the seating of a panel on May 29 and for the trial on the merits to begin July 1. The next scheduled pretrial hearing is 10 a.m. March 20 here. The defense will again challenge to what extent Evan Kohlmann can testify as an expert witness. The accused, Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
March 20, 2013 - Major Hasan trial to stay at Fort Hood. Col. Tara Osborn, the presiding judge in United States vs. Maj. Nidal Hasan, held a pretrial hearing March 20 here. Osborn announced several pending rulings. Osborn, denied defense requests to move the court martial away from Fort Hood and to order a change of potential panel members. She then heard evidentiary arguments to determine whether Mr. Evan Kohlmann will be allowed to testify as an expert witness in the case. Osborn stated she will announce at later date to what extent Kohlmann will be allowed to testify in the Hasan court martial. Osborn also denied a defense request to send a supplemental questionnaire to panel members and ruled that under the facts of this case, Article 45(b) of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice prohibits the court from accepting a guilty plea. Osborn set the next hearing in the case for April 16. The accused, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
April 16, 2013 -- Judge Osborn rules on pre-trial motions in MAJ Hasan case. Judge (Col.) Tara Osborn ruled on a number of pretrial motions relating to admissibility of evidence, production of witnesses, and other preliminary trial matters April 16. She also set the next pre-trial hearing in the case for 10 a.m. May 9. Osborn ruled to grant in part and deny in part the defense's request to limit testimony by radical extremism expert Evan Kohlmann. The government will be able to refer to Kohlmann for testimony regarding contextual analysis and definitions, but not for "profile" testimony. The defense was denied a motion to limit rehabilitation of panel members by the government during voir dire. Osborn also ordered defense to amend their request for witness production, as Osborn ruled their request did not comply with procedural rules. Osborn may rule whether she will require the government to produce defense requested witnesses at the next hearing. During the final hour, the prosecution and defense argued about the relevancy and admissibility of different evidence as it relates to the alleged motives and planning and preparation of the accused. Osborn delayed her decision on this matter. Selection of a panel (the military's equivalent of a jury) remains set to begin May 29. The trial is set to begin July 1.
May 9, 2013 -- Judge rules on pre-trial motions in Major Hasan case. Col. Tara Osborn, the trial judge in United States vs. Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, held a pretrial hearing at the Lawrence J. Williams Judicial Center and issued several rulings from the bench 9 May. First, Osborn denied a defense request for a continuance until Sept. 1. The defense requested the continuance because of recent publicity from the Boston Marathon Bombing that included references to Hasan. Osborn granted several defense requests requiring the production of defense witnesses at trial, and also limited the type of evidence the government could introduce during sentencing proceedings. Finally, Osborn denied a defense request to make the Hasan court martial non-capital. She also again denied a defense request for the appointment of a media analysis expert. Osborn set the next hearing for May 29 and scheduled May 30 to begin panel selection. A panel is the military equivalent of a jury.