New York Times
Thursday, March 21, 2002
A comparison of some rules for military tribunals for terrorism suspects with courts-martial and civilian courts.
| RIGHT TO COUNSEL | COMPOSITION OF JURY | VOTE REQUIRED TO CONVICT | RULES OF EVIDENCE | VENUE FOR APPEALS | |
| CIVILIAN FEDERAL COURTS | Accused chooses own lawyer, or one is provided if the accused cannot afford one. | 12 members drawn at random. | Unanimous decision to convict and to impose sentence, including the death penalty. | Strict federal rules of evidence apply, including of custody chain of evidence. | United States Court of Appeals, then the Supreme Court |
| COURTS- MARTIAL | Government provides a military lawyer; accused can request one of own choosing. Can also pay for a civilian lawyer. | For serious offenses, at least five military members selected by the commanding officer. | Two-thirds vote to convict in non-capital cases; unanimous vote required for conviction and sentencing in death penalty cases. | Strict military rules of evidence apply, virtually identical to the federal rules of evidence. | Cases are subject to review by military Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Appeals for Armed Forces and then the Supreme Court. |
| MILITARY TRIBUNALS | A military lawyer provided, and the accused can replace with one of own choosing. Accused can also pay for a civilian attorney. | Three to seven military officers appointed by the military. Seven members required for death penalty cases. | A two-thirds vote required to convict. Decision to impose the death penalty would have to be unanimous. | Evidence can be admitted if it “would have probative value to a reasonable person.” | A review panel appointed by the Secretary of Defense, which could include civilians temporarily appointed as officers. |
Sources: Administration officials (commissions); National Institute of Military Justice (courts-martial, federal courts)
