Accused Fort Hood Shooter to Appear in Court (Updated)
Update: The Army Major accused in the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood will still face the death penalty if he’s convicted.
Nidal Hasan is charged with killing 13 people and wounding dozens more. This morning the judge in his case denied a request from his lawyers to take the death penalty off the table.
Update (Jan. 30, 8:04 a.m.): Army Maj. Nidal Hasan returns to military court this morning—more than three years after he’s accused of going on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood.
The first of three pretrial hearings starts today with the new judge assigned to the trial. Col. Tara Osborn will reconsider issues including whether Hasan should face the death penalty.
Original Story (Jan. 24, 7:45 a.m.): The Army psychiatrist accused in the Fort Hood shooting will head back to court next week.
The new judge in the case has set three pretrial hearings for Army Maj. Nidal Hasan. The first is on Jan. 30.
Hasan is accused of killing 13 people and wounding 32 others in a 2009 shooting rampage at the Army post. If convicted, he could face the death penalty or life without parole in military prison.
The new judge will reconsider several issues including whether the government should pay for a media analyst for the defense. She will also look at issues related to Hasan’s beard – which allegedly violates the military uniform code.
Col. Tara Osborn is now the presiding judge in the case. She replaces Col. Gregory Gross, who was removed by an appeals court. Hasan’s defense argued that Gross was biased against their client.
Here’s a look at what will be considered in the pretrial hearings:
1) Should the defense receive the services of a media analyst at government expense,
2) Should the defense receive defense initiated victim outreach services at government expense,
3) Should previous protective orders be modified,
4) Should the capital referral be set aside because of alleged violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 36 (concerning the President’s rule-making authority) and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, and
5) A defense request for appropriate relief concerning the UCMJ’s Article 45(b).