U.S. man to get a new trial in Iraq mas­sacre

Los Angeles Times - - THE NATION -

WASH­ING­TON — A fed­eral ap­peals court on Fri­day over­turned the first-de­gree mur­der con­vic­tion of a for­mer Black­wa­ter se­cu­rity con­trac­tor, or­der­ing a new trial for the man pros­e­cu­tors say fired the first shots in the 2007 slay­ings of 14 Iraqi civil­ians at a crowded traf­fic cir­cle in Bagh­dad.

In a split opin­ion, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Ap­peals for the Dis­trict of Co­lum­bia Cir­cuit ruled that a lower court erred by not al­low­ing Ni­cholas Slat­ten to be tried sep­a­rately from his three co-de­fen­dants in 2014.

The 33-year-old con­trac­tor from Ten­nessee is serv­ing a life sen­tence for his part in the killings, which strained in­ter­na­tional re­la­tions and drew in­tense scru­tiny of the role of Amer­i­can con­trac­tors in the Iraq war.

The court also or­dered new sen­tences for the three other con­trac­tors, Paul Slough, Evan Lib­erty and Dustin Heard. They were each found guilty of man­slaugh­ter and firearms charges car­ry­ing manda­tory 30-year terms.

The judges de­ter­mined that those sen­tences vi­o­lated the con­sti­tu­tional pro­hi­bi­tion of cruel and un­usual pun­ish­ment be­cause pros­e­cu­tors charged them with us­ing mil­i­tary firearms while com­mit­ting an­other felony. That statute, typ­i­cally em­ployed against gang mem­bers or bank rob­bers, had never be­fore been used against over­seas se­cu­rity con­trac­tors work­ing for the U.S. gov­ern­ment.

A spokesman for the U.S. at­tor­ney’s of­fice said pros­e­cu­tors were still re­view­ing the de­ci­sion and had no im­me­di­ate com­ment.

Bill Coffield, a lawyer for Lib­erty, said he planned to meet with his client to re­view their op­tions. “Ob­vi­ously we’re pleased with the court’s de­ci­sion in terms of the un­con­sti­tu­tion­al­ity of the sen­tence,” he said.

At the 2014 trial, fed­eral pros­e­cu­tors and de­fense lawyers pre­sented very dif­fer­ent ver­sions of what led to the mas­sacre in Nisoor Square. The gov­ern­ment de­scribed the killings as an am­bush of un­armed civil­ians; the de­fense said the guards opened fire out of fear that a fast-mov­ing ve­hi­cle might con­tain a bomb. No ev­i­dence of a bomb was found.

In is­su­ing their rul­ing ben­e­fit­ing the de­fen­dants, the judges said they were in no way ex­cus­ing the hor­ror of events they said “de­fies civ­i­lized de­scrip­tion.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.