Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Timothy Baily Hennis - US Military Death Row

  1. #11
    Banned TheKindExecutioner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,277
    IF the execution ever occurs it will be past 2016.

  2. #12
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Supreme Court won't hear convicted soldier's murder appeal

    The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a former Fort Bragg soldier convicted in the 1985 deaths of a Fayetteville woman and two of her daughters.

    Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis is on death row in a military prison following his April 2010 court-martial.

    Kathryn Eastburn and two of her daughters, 5-year-old Kara and 3-year-old Erin, were stabbed to death in their Summerhill Road home on May 9, 1985. Jana Eastburn, who was 22 months old at the time, was left unharmed in her crib.

    Hennis petitioned the Supreme Court in April to review his case. The justices didn't provide a reason for their refusal.

    He was convicted in state court in 1986 but won an appeal and was acquitted in a second trial three years later. He finished out his service in the Army and retired to Washington state.

    Years later, DNA tests not available in the 1980s linked Hennis to sperm found on Kathryn Eastburn. Because Hennis couldn't be tried in state court again, the case was turned over to the Army to pursue a court-martial.

    http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/11193906/
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  3. #13
    Senior Member Member RobertH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    121
    I just cant help but think that SCOTUS would want to hear the double jeopardy argument here. Don't get me wrong if he did it, he should be punished, but I think there is a constitutionality issue here.

  4. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    119
    Yes,RobertH,because I am sure that the US definition of double jeopardy applies to all US courts (which also means those acquitted in a state court cannot be tried in a federal court for the same offence,and vice versa).

  5. #15
    Senior Member Member RobertH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    121
    I am prior military, but I am not sure how the military courts can take jurisdiction on a civilian case...I will have to do some research and see if there is already precedent., Does anyone else know?

    Here is what I found.

    Joint Jurisdiction. Courts-martial have exclusive jurisdiction over purely military offenses. In the case of an offense that violates the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the criminal law of a State, other Federal law, or all three, it must be determined which jurisdiction will prosecute. This decision is normally made through coordination between appropriate military authorities (ordinarily the chief military lawyer at an installation (Staff Judge Advocate)) and appropriate civilian authorities (United States Attorney or District Attorney’s Office).

    The fact that an accused is subject to trial by court-martial does not eliminate the possibility of trial by another jurisdiction, either in addition to or in lieu of court-martial. Under the United States Constitution, a person may not be tried for the same misconduct by both a court-martial and another federal court. Such an act would violate the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause.

    Criminal prosecution in both federal and state courts is also a constitutional possibility. The Constitution’s double jeopardy clause is not applicable because two different sovereigns are involved, i.e. the federal government and state government. As a matter of policy, however, a person who is pending trial or has been tried by a State court is ordinarily not tried by court-martial for the same act.


    Commission of an offense overseas may result in trial by the host nation. Under international law, a foreign nation has jurisdiction to punish offenses committed within its borders by members of a visiting force, unless it expressly or by implication consents to relinquish its jurisdiction to the visiting sovereign. Generally, the United States has concluded Status of Forces agreements with host nations that indicate which sovereign will have primary jurisdiction over particular offenses. To the extent possible, efforts are made under such agreements to maximize the exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over military members or other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    http://www.usmilitarylawyer.com/type...rt-martial.asp
    Last edited by RobertH; 06-11-2012 at 05:00 PM.

  6. #16
    Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    38
    Whatever the merits of it, seems pretty surprising SCOTUS didn't hear it, as there doesn't seem anything directly on point there.

    I have to say my initial reaction is that it's hard to see how the double jeopardy clause doesn't apply,

    The judgement from the 4th Circuit is here - http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/106400.P.pdf - off to read it!

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Great Britain
    Posts
    119
    Thank you for the clarification,RobertH.

  8. #18
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Quote Originally Posted by couldheshebeinnocent? View Post
    Yes,RobertH,because I am sure that the US definition of double jeopardy applies to all US courts (which also means those acquitted in a state court cannot be tried in a federal court for the same offence,and vice versa).
    Quote Originally Posted by RobertH View Post
    Criminal prosecution in both federal and state courts is also a constitutional possibility. The Constitution’s double jeopardy clause is not applicable because two different sovereigns are involved, i.e. the federal government and state government. As a matter of policy, however, a person who is pending trial or has been tried by a State court is ordinarily not tried by court-martial for the same act.[/I]
    As usual schooled!

    Although Hennis murdered the victims off post, he himself was property of the United States Army, therefore the military was able to successfully prosecute and obtain a sentence of death for his heinous murders.

    *Trivia

    DNA has helped convict more death row inmates than exonerate!
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

  9. #19
    Senior Member Member RobertH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    121
    page 18 of the decision spells out the double jeopardy question...

    Second, Hennis argues that his case is "unparalleled in the annals of American jurisprudence" because "he is being sent to death row for a second time by a different sovereign[,]" which, according to Hennis, implicates an extraordinary circumstance mandating federal court intervention under Councilman. Appellant’s Br. at 22. The legal precedents on this issue are undisputed and clear: The federal government, which includes the military, is regarded as a separate sovereign from the states; therefore, prosecution within the military justice system after a state court acquittal does not implicate double jeopardy concerns. Bratkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 132-33 (1959) (noting that it is "unquestioned constitutional law that such successive prosecutions [in federal and then state court] would not violate the proscription of double jeopardy included in the Fifth Amendment"); United States v. Stokes, 12 M.J. 229, 231 (C.M.A. 1982) (holding that "trial by a court-martial is barred . . . only if the accused has already been tried in a court which derives its authority from the Federal Government"). It follows that Hennis’s successive prosecution by the Army after an acquittal in state court does not, standing alone, justify equitable intervention by federal courts into pending military proceedings under Councilman.

    I learned something new today...

  10. #20
    Administrator Heidi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    33,217
    Oh yeah, Hennis was ordered back to active duty to be court tried.
    An uninformed opponent is a dangerous opponent.

    "Y'all be makin shit up" ~ Markeith Loyd

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •