Navy fails to notify reporters, holds trial out of public view

Posted to: Military Norfolk

NORFOLK

A Navy sailor who slashed a shipmate's throat was found guilty Friday of attempted murder after a two-day court-martial conducted outside the public eye.

Seaman Richard Mott was assigned to the Cape St. George in March 2007, when the ship was undergoing repairs at a local shipyard. According to testimony during a preliminary hearing, Mott left his work station in the kitchen of a berthing barge and attacked Seaman Jose Garcia from behind as the 18-year-old ate breakfast.

Garcia almost died, and his injuries forced him out of the Navy.

Mott's court-martial began Tuesday, with a reporter in attendance. The judge, Capt. David Bailey, almost immediately continued the case until January but noted that attorneys might reach a pretrial agreement in the interim. The Virginian-Pilot asked Beth Baker, the designated public affairs official, to be notified of any developments on the case. The trial resumed the next day, with no notice to reporters who were following the case.

Baker said that was a mistake and that she did not learn the case had resumed until Friday, and by the time she notified reporters, the sentencing was under way. "This was an isolated incident. All I can say is I'm sorry," Baker said.

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, wasn't satisfied.

Fidell, a lawyer who teaches military justice at Yale University Law School, said public confidence in military justice depends on transparency.

"What does it take to get the services' attention on this?" he asked. The military has "been on notice of the media's acute interest in providing real-time coverage of newsworthy military justice for a very long time."

It was the second time in as many months that an unannounced scheduling change kept reporters from covering high-profile court proceedings at Norfolk Naval Station.

On Sept. 30, two reporters tried to attend the arraignment of a Navy chaplain charged with raping a subordinate. They were told after arriving that the arraignment had been held early and was already finished.

"The military services have got to come into the 21st century," Fidell said. "We live in an information era where it's not rocket science to create real-time, meaningful access to information and access to courtrooms."

In an interview Friday afternoon, Navy legal officials gave the following account of the court proceedings:

Mott pleaded not guilty, though he did sign a statement acknowledging his attack on Garcia.

His attorney, Greg D. McCormack, argued that Mott was schizophrenic and not responsible for his actions that day. A Navy psychiatrist who examined Mott after the attack testified that the sailor was not able to appreciate "the nature and quality of his actions" - one of two requirements for the insanity defense.

Prosecutors did not dispute that Mott has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. But they argued that his attack on Garcia was premeditated, and presented as evidence a sales receipt for the knife, which Mott bought the night before the attack.

Bailey ruled Friday that Mott was mentally responsible for his actions. The conviction could have carried a sentence of life in prison; Bailey sentenced Mott to 12 years in a federal facility.

McCormack did not respond to a message left Friday afternoon.

Cmdr. Doug Barber, the lead prosecutor in the case, called it a "very complicated, very challenging case."

The victim "was 18 years old, on his second day aboard ship, eating breakfast, when he was attacked," Barber said.

Garcia would have died if not for quick reaction from shipmates and medical care from corpsmen assigned to the ship, Barber said.

"They saved his life. He hadn't done anything wrong. He didn't deserve to have that happen."

The Cape St. George, a guided missile cruiser, is now homeported in San Diego.

Kate Wiltrout, (757) 446-2629, kate.wiltrout@pilotonline.com

COMMENTS ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here; comments do not reflect the views of The Virginian-Pilot or its websites. Users must follow agreed-upon rules: Be civil, be clean, be on topic; don't attack private individuals, other users or classes of people. Read the full rules here.
- Comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the report violation link below it.

A response to Charles...

Yes, I agree the government does suck at times and I believe it is too big for comfort, but you as well as many of us helped it get that way by voting (or not voting...) for the people that make up the government. I'm willing to bet that you'd look to the government and military for help if your life depended on it, God forbid there be a catastrophe?

You can take comfort in knowing that our tax dollars ARE at work delivering justice, with or without the media's presence. I would understand your concern more if nothing on this case were moving towards justice, but seeing how that isn't the case - what's the issue?

It also makes me wonder why the Pilot even bothered writing this? Is the intention to garner public sympathy?

Military matters aren't the public's business? Are you crazy?

In America, the military works for the public. It has an obligation to meet the requirements of disclosure within the confines of the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. More importantly, the people involved in military trials are the sons and daughters of American parents. Without their confidence and support, the military would never be able to recruit or retain a single person because people would lose confidence in what military leaders are doing. When the public has a right to know--as in the case of an open trial--then denial of access to the media/public is a very, very serious matter. In corporations or the government it is the public affairs people who are often lied to or kept in the dark about events yet they fight every day, often at risk to their careers, to do what is right. This appears to be the case in this incident, which is why an investigation should be conducted with the results disclosed to the media to find out what happened and why.

I thought trials were on the base...

Which means the media is invited, not notified.

If notification is the accurate word, then the media should simply use their own military ID cards and come aboard!

And since the trial was at the Naval Base, it was out of public view. The base is not open to the public. What, specifically, is the headline trying to convey? Conspiracy? Intrigue?

Remember, the judges set the trial time. I am sure Ms. Baker only provided the time that was given to her. If the judge decides to start a proceeding early or late, the public affairs officer does they best they can to adjust. Based on your own writings, that is exactly what happened.

Justice

Justice is not dependent upon a squealing pack of news media hyenas rendering their judgements before a trial, nor opinions afterward.

I agree with Willy

I agree with what Willy said - since it was military on military, why is the media getting its panties all bunched up? I don't think the Navy has anything to apologize for in this case. The media should be happy that justice is being served - and last I checked, justice could be administered without the supervision of the media!

Military trial

How odd that the press is in a fit of pique over not getting an announcement of a Military trial.

I agree with a previous poster, that the Military trials are absolutely none of their business!

The Military knows how to run a trial and should never be under the prevue of media, especially the left wing varieties we now have!

In reply to:

"Because it’s none of you’re business what the military does with its trials. If they want the uninformed civilian media to know the PAO will contact you." Then is it my business to know where my tax dollars are going in YOUR Navy?? Gimme a break. Government sucks and the "military" falls in that category I'm afraid.

Engraved Invitations

Now the press requires engraved invitations to events / trials etc?

Back in the day a good reporter didn't let something slip by him like this. Daily calls to the court checking the schedule? Wonder if that happened.

Leaving it up to someone else to notify you when something is going to happen... leaves you open to missing stuff... Perhaps your contact got busy with other tasks from her boss??

The inference in the story is that something inappropriate happened at the trial - ?!?!? - But no substance about that in the story...

How times have changed.

liberal media keep you're nose out

"It was the second time in as many months that an unannounced scheduling change kept reporters from covering high-profile court proceedings at Norfolk Naval Station." Because it’s none of you’re business what the military does with its trials. If they want the uninformed civilian media to know the PAO will contact you.

I don't think it is the fault of Beth Baker...

...it's the fault of the commander and the JAG officers involved. I can almost assure you 100% that they are the people who chose to exclude the media without notifying their public relations staff. The Virginian-Pilot should get an interview with the senior commander in Norfolk with a public assurance that this won't happen again.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Please note: Threaded comments work best if you view the oldest comments first.

More articles from: Military rss feed   



Toolbox


 

special features