[Y]our husband donned a uniform to protect certain values we deem important and label American. A portion of which is the American Justice system. And this system is based on a set of rules we universally accept. And those rules state to convict a person of a charge there must be min level of proof, and that was not done in this case. I am not sure if Mr. Martinez is innocent or not. But he was aquitted (sic) in our system of courts, and these courts derive their power from folks like your husband, and I putting on a uniform and saying we will lay our lives down to defend this system. That must be respected. The system must be respected for it to work. It is the only reason the system remains powerful.Skala concludes,
So I am not sure looking at the system we entrust to render justice with distain (sic) and doubt and saying we want to invalidate it because it gave us a judgment we don't like honors your husbands (sic) service to his country. Invalidating that system t (sic) in-validates (sic) your husbands (sic) service and my service at the same time.
- I see an issue in how the members of a court-martial are selected and subsequently vetted for bias, particularly in death penalty-eligible cases and particularly when some selectees are opposed to capital punishment.
- I see an issue in how the members of a court-martial are instructed in the law prior to their deliberations and the clarity of their instructions.
- I see an issue in how jury members in a strict, hierarchically-based organization must somehow put aside their rank structure and deliberate as equal peers.
- And I see an issue in the possible conflicts of interest that arise when the military disciplines itself when defects in its own culture are an issue in a case.
8/29: minor edits for clarity.