Galloway to Kaffee


She says to Kaffee that if the questioning of Jesup does not go well he should refrain from asking about whether he ordered the code red. She says she either knew or worked in Internal Affairs and advises him there would be 'trouble'.
I realize there would be informal backlash and he would probably have to leave the service. My question is could Kaffee be investigated by Internal Affairs for simply asking the question in court?

Every third person who complains will be shot. Two people have complained already!

reply

[deleted]

thank you for the reply

reply

Well, my question here is ; if Kaffee were equal to Jessup in rank, would the same rules apply ? Or would he have more lattitude in questioning Jessup ?

reply

[deleted]

In a military trial, no one is allowed to suggest that an officer has violated regulations or any provision of the UCMJ without substantial evidence to support the allegation.


I was wondering about this, since Captain Ross said "if you accuse Kendrick or Jessup," which would leave open the idea that merely questioning or suggesting the possibility wouldn't be out of bounds. Even Captain Ross asked Kendrick if he ordered the Code Red, but he didn't make it an accusation.

Since Jessup and Kendrick were both hostile witnesses, doesn't that give Kaffee greater latitude in questioning them?

How can a defendant get a fair trial if his attorney has his hands tied like that?

reply

[deleted]

Remember, the defense can accuse or 'suggest' wrongdoing by an officer on the witness stand, but he must have evidence to back up the accusation. That evidence could be the testimony of an eyewitness, a document that contradicts the officer's testimony, or the preponderance of the evidence to the contrary. I have to reject your assertion that the attorney's hands are tied.


So, then in Kendrick's case, since Dawson was saying that Kendrick gave him the order, it wasn't actually Kaffee making the accusation, but Dawson.

Of course, Kaffee wasn't pulling it out of his backside and making some wild accusation out of the blue. He knew Jessup's role in the affair from what Markinson told him, even though Markinson shot himself before he could testify. It may not be enough to convict Jessup, but if Jessup's second-in-command comes to Washington and says Jessup committed a crime and then ends up dead, you'd think someone in authority might want to investigate such an occurrence.

Maybe it doesn't actually tie the attorney's hands, but it doesn't really make much sense. After all, if they have enough evidence to back up an accusation, then they could just arrest him and not even bother asking him the question on the stand. If they don't have the evidence, then they're not allowed to ask; but if they do have the evidence, there's no point in asking.

reply

[deleted]

That kind of crap would never be allowed in a civilian trial, either.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

Here's the problem with what Ross said to Kaffee, though. At that point Kaffee DID have evidence to back up his accusation against Kendrick and/or Jessup. Kaffee had literally just told Ross that HE HAD MARKINSON. That's evidence enough. Crazy or not, as Ross claims Markinson is, his testimony goes in at trial, and the jury gets to decide whether or not they believe him.

I think this is actually an error on the part of the screenplay writer. He's jumping the gun by anticipating Markinson's suicide, with the resulting lack of evidence that follows.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply

Additionally, they have Dawson as evidence as well. All they have to do is put Dawson on the stand - which they were planning on doing anyway before Downey's f@ck up - and there's your evidence to support asking the question of Kendrick and/or Jessup.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

reply