Army News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Army Times

Prosecutors: Keep Green case in civilian court

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — The rape and murder case against a former Fort Campbell soldier belongs in civilian court, not the military’s court-martial system, federal prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said in court filings that former 101st Airborne Pfc. Steven D. Green was properly discharged from the military before being charged as a civilian with raping and killing an Iraqi girl and killing her family in 2006.

“He received a discharge certificate, a final accounting of pay was made, and contrary to his assertions, he successfully completed Ft. Campbell’s clearing process for outgoing service members,” assistant U.S. attorneys Marisa Ford and Brian Skaret wrote.

In 88 pages of motions filed late Friday night, federal prosecutors also argued that the decision to seek the death penalty for Green is valid and that the case is supported by evidence.

Green, 22, of Midland, Texas, faces a possible death sentence if convicted on 16 charges that include premeditated murder and aggravated sexual assault. He pleaded not guilty in November 2006.

Four other soldiers pleaded guilty or were convicted for their roles in targeting the girl from a checkpoint near Mahmoudiya, a village 20 miles south of Baghdad, and helping rape and kill her.

Two of the soldiers testified they took turns raping the girl while Green shot and killed her mother, father and younger sister, and that Green raped the girl and shot her.

Green’s attorneys in February challenged his indictment and prosecutors’ decision to seek the death penalty if he’s convicted on a number of grounds.

The attorneys argued that the government doesn’t have the authority to prosecute Green in civilian court for acts committed in a war zone.

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act allows prosecutors to try military personnel in federal court if they are no longer in the service and charged for a crime punishable by at least a year in prison. Green offered to re-enlist in the Army and face a court-martial for the rape and murder, but was turned down, defense attorneys said in the motion.

Green’s lawyers say he faces a much harsher punishment if convicted than his alleged coconspirators received in military court. A soldier charged as an accessory received five years, while the others’ sentences ranged from 90 to 110 years.

Ford and Skaret said those soldiers were charged as principals, not the actual killer, and received appropriate sentences of 90 to 110 years as part of their plea agreements. All are eligible for parole in 10 years.

The defense claims discharging Green before he was criminally charged in the military system violated his due process rights. They cite testimony that Green reported his involvement to his commanding sergeant twice and was instructed to leave the military.

Another defense motion claims Green was improperly discharged from the Army, due to procedural errors, and should still subject to the military justice system. Green was discharged from the military for psychiatric reasons before allegations surfaced in 2006 of U.S. involvement in the rape and murders.

Ford and Skaret said Green was properly released from military service and that federal courts have generally shied away from disputes involving the military’s discharge and retention procedures.

Even though Green tried to re-enlist, the Army had no duty to accept him and he had no legal right to be in the Army, Ford and Skaret said. Ford and Skaret said Green said Green had not shown his personality disorder was corrected when he tried to re-enlist.

“Furthermore, the Army was not bound to accept his reenlistment for the sole purpose of trying him by court-martial,” Ford and Skaret wrote.

Green had been honorably discharged from the military with psychiatric problems when allegations surfaced of U.S. military involvement in the March 12, 2006, slayings. He was arrested that July as a civilian, while visiting family in North Carolina.

Ford and Skaret also responded to Green’s claims that the federal death penalty process and methods were unconstitutional, saying the evidence warrants seeking a death sentence, the federal death penalty is procedurally sound and that Green is ineligible to attack lethal injection because he is not currently sentenced to death.