.Politics » Lt. Michael Behenna

Justice Department Gets More Time in Behenna Case

Chris Casteel — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:02:12 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court has given the Justice Department another month to submit its arguments about whether 1st Lt. Michael Behenna should get a new trial and now has until April 29. Behenna was convicted in 2009 of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone for killing an Iraqi man linked to the roadside bombing that killed two members of Behenna’s platoon.
The highest military appeals court upheld Behenna’s conviction last summer. Behenna is asking the Supreme Court to review his case. The Justice Department represents the U.S. government, and the Supreme Court has asked for a response to Behenna’s petition for review.

Supreme Court Gives Justice Department More Time in Behenna Case

Chris Casteel — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:11:04 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court has given the U.S. Justice Department an additional month to file a response to 1st Lt. Michael Behenna’s request for the justices to hear his case.
The Justice Department initially declined to respond to Behenna’s appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces decision to uphold his conviction for unpremeditated murder in a combat zone. However, the high court asked the Justice Department to respond and gave a deadline of Feb. 27. On Wednesday, the court extended the time until March 29.
Behenna, who is serving a 15-year sentence in Fort Leavenworth, KS, for killing an Iraqi man in 2008, has a team of lawyers on his Supreme Court petition, including University of Oklahoma law professor and constitutional expert Joseph Thai.
Behenna last week lost his latest bid for clemency.

U.S. Supreme Court Wants Justice Department to Respond to Behenna Petition

Chris Casteel — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:52:10 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the U.S. Justice Department to respond to the appeal filed by 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, who is seeking to have his conviction of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone overturned.
Attorneys for Behenna filed his petition on Jan. 2, but the Justice Department declined a few days later to give a government response. Supreme Court justices were scheduled to consider whether to hear Behenna’s case on Feb. 15. However, on Monday, the court asked the government to file a response by Feb. 27, pushing back the date at which the justices will consider granting the petition.

Behenna Given Extension to File Appeal with U.S. Supreme Court

Chris Casteel — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:58:49 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court has given 1st Lt. Michael Behenna an extension to file an appeal of his conviction of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone. He will now have until Jan. 3, an extension from the Nov. 4 deadline.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the military’s highest appeals court, upheld the Edmond native’s conviction in July. A U.S. Army appeals court has also upheld the conviction. In 2008, Behenna shot and killed an Iraqi man he suspected of being a terrorist.
The attorney who filed for the extension was Jeffrey L. Fisher, with the Stanford Law School, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
Houston attorney Jack Zimmerman, a specialist in military cases, handled Behenna’s 2009 court martial and his previous appeals.

Oral Arguments Set in Appeals Court for 1st Lt. Michael Behenna’s Case

Chris Casteel — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:11:54 +0000

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces _ the military’s highest appeals court _ has set oral arguments for April 23 in the case of 1st Lt. Michael Behenna, who was convicted in 2009 of unpremeditated murder in a combat zone.
The arguments will be held at the court’s headquarters in Washington, DC.
Behenna, an Edmond native now serving a 15-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was convicted of killing an Iraqi man that Behenna suspected of terrorism. Behenna was questioning the man when he shot him and claimed self-defense at his trial.
The court has agreed to consider whether prosecutors in the 2009 court-martial withheld evidence that might have helped Behenna’s case and whether the judge gave erroneous instructions to the jury on Behenna’s claim of self-defense.