IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
STATE OF OHIO
Case No. 3013-0711
Appellee,
V.
JEFFREY D. BELEW
On Appeal from the Court of
Appeals, Sixth Appellate District
Court of Appeals Case
No. L-11-1279
Appellant
BRIEF OF AMICI CURAE THE VETERAN'S DEFENSE PROJECT, IN SUPPORT OF
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Brockton D. Hunter (PHV # 5439-2014)
(Counsel of Record)
Brockton D. Hunter P.A.
3033 Excelsior Blvd.
Suite 550
Minneapolis, MN 55416
(612) 874-1625
(612)824-0311 (fax)
Karin L. Coble (0078571)
Law Office of Karin L. Coble
3409 N. Holland-Sylvania Road, Suite 7
Toledo, OH 43615
Phone (888) 268-3625
Fax (888) 268-6995
email karinlcoble cr gmail.com
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
Veterans Defense Project
Stephen P. Hardwick (0662932
Assistant Public Defender
(Counsel of Record)
Willianl J. Mooney (0002729)
Assistant Public Defender
Ohio Public Defender's Office
259 E. Broad St. Suite 1400
Columbus, OH 42315
(614) 466-5394
(614) 752-5167 (fax)
[email protected]
Attorney for Appellant
Julia R. Bates (0013426)
Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney
David Cooper (0006176)
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney
Lucas County Courthouse
700 Adams Street, Suite 250
Toledo, OH 43604
(419) 213-4700
(419) 213-4595 (fax)
AttoNney. foN .4ppellee
r..
. , K J i
. .....
.
...
^•^, .' ^ ... _
•:,^;
;Lw °:0 .ii-._ ,; ,°•;:;^^-,
x.;'r e% PF,,..
. ,^..
'ta tr't ^.s':. :% 4.£`
^ '•.ir''^3.i£.i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ... .................................................................................................... ii
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS .........................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................1
ARGUME NT .. ......................................................................................................................2
1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRENDS AND PRECEDENT DEMONSTRATE
PUBLIC AND GREAT GENERAL INTEREST ...........................................................3
A. U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes Service-Related Disorder Relevant in
S entencing . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . .. ... . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. .. . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. .. . .. ... . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .4
B. Minnesota, California and Federal Courts Recognize Service-Related
Disorders Relevant in Sentencing ............................................................................5
C. The Popularity of Veterans Treatment Courts Suggests Public Interest.................. 7
II. THE HISTORY OF CRIMINALLY INVOLVED VETERANS REVEALS
THE INJUSTICE THAT OCCURS WHEN SERVICE-RELATED
DISORDERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS .. ............9
A. Post-War Crinie Waves Involving Combat Veterans Following Every
Major Conflict Evidence the Inherent Link between Combat Trauma and
Criminal Behavior ..................................................................................................11
B. PTSD's Stigma Has Led to Aggressive Punishnient of Veterans with
Service-Related Disorders .....................................................................................15
C. Iraq and Afghan Veterans Present an Opportunity to Correct Past Mistakes........20
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................22
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Porter v. McCollum, 130 S.Ct. 447 (2009) .................................................................................4
State v. Belew, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2964 .....................................................................2
Strickland v. Washington, 446 U.S. 668 (1984) ..........................................................................4
LAWS
Cal. Penal Code § 1170.9 (2010) ................................................................................................8
Col. Revised Stat. §§ I3-3-101, 13-5-144 (2010) .......................................................................8
730 Ill.. Comp. Stat. Ann. 167 (2010) ..........................................................................................8
Minn. Stat. § 609.115 subd. 10 ...................................................................................................5
Ohio S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.10 ................................................................................................................3
Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2929.12(F) (2013) .................................................................................2
Or. Rev. Stat. § 135.886(2)0)(3) (2010) ......................................................................................8
Tex. Health and Safety Code §617 (2010) ..................................................................................8
Va. Code §2.2-2001.1 (2010) ......................................................................................................8
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Adam Caine, Fallen ftom Grace: Wh,) Treatanent Should Be Considered foN Convicted
Combat Veterans Suffering fr^om Post Traumatic Stress DisoNder,78 U.M.K.C.
L.Rev. 215 (2009) ..................................................................................................................6
ALLAN NTEVINS; THE AMERICAN STATES DURING AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION 17751789 454 (1924) ...................................................................................................................11
B. SHEPARD, A WAR OF NERVES: SOLDIERS AND PSYCHIATRISTS IN THE TWENTIETH
CENTURY, 77 (Harvard University Press, 2001) ..................................................................17
Betty Rosenbauin, The Relationship Between War and Crime in the United States, 30 J.
CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 722, 730 (1940) ..........................................................................13
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, VETERANS IN PRISON OR JAIL 1(2000) .................................13
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, NCJ 217199, VETERANS IN STATE AND FEDERAL
PRISON, 2004 6 (2007) ..........................................................................................................13
Charles Hoge, Et Al., Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems,
and Barriers to Care, 35 NEw ENG. J. OF MED. 13-22 (2004) .............................................20
Charles M. Sennott, Told to Wait, A IUIaNine Dies: VA Care in Spotlight after Iraq War
Veteran's Suicide, BOSTON GLOBE, Feb. 11, 2007 ..............................................................21
COMM. ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ONGOING EFFORTS IN THE TREATMENT OF POSTTRAUMATIC
S"['KESS DISORDER, INST. OF MED. OF THE NAT L ACADEMIES, TREATMENT FOR
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER IN MILITARY AND VETERAN POPIJLATIONS: INITIAL
ASSESSMENT 39 (2012) ............................................................................................................10
Dan Ephron and Sarah Childress, How the U.S. Is Failing 7ts Wctr Veterans, NEWSWEEK,
il
Mar. 5, 2007 .........................................................................................................................21
Daniel Zwerdling, Gaps in Mental Care Persist for Fort Carson Soldiers, NAT''L PUB.
RADIO, May 24, 2007 ...........................................................................................................18
Daniel Zwerdling, Pentagon Report Cites Mental Health Concerns, NAT'L PUB. RADIO,
June 15, 2007......... ................................................................................................................18
DAVID H MARLOWE, RAND CORP., PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL
CONSEQUENCES OF COMBAT AND DEPLOYMENT 48 (2001) .................................................
DEP'T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, MENTAL HEALTH RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION
TREATMENT PROGRAM (MH RR'TP), Veterans Health Administration Handbook
1162.02, 4 (Dec. 22, 20 ]. 0) ...................................................................................................22
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Facilities Management, 70 Years of VA
History (Apr. 2001) ..............................................................................................................17
DR. CHRISANNE GORDON, M.D., AND DR. RONALD GLASSER, M.D., THEATTORNEY'S
GUIDE TO DEFEvDING VETERANS IN CRIMINAL C'OURT.' TRAUMATIC BRAININJURIES
(7'BI^: THEI_NVIS7BLEINJURY201 (BROCKTON D. HUNTER, ESQ. AND RYAN C. ELSE,
ESQ., 2014) ...........................................................................................................................10
E. C. Wines & Theodore Dwight, The Reformation of Prison Discipline, N. AM. REv.,
VOL. CV, 580-81 (1876) .......................................................................................................12
Edith Abbot, Crime and the War, 9 J. AM. INST. CRiM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 33, 41
(1918) ...................................................................................................................................11
Edith Abbot, The C'ivil War and the Crime Wave of 1865-70, 1 SoC. SERV. REv. 212,
212 (1927) ............................................................................................................................12
EDWARD TICK, WAR AND THE SHOULD, HEALING OUR NATION'S VETERANS FROM
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, 209-216 (Quest Books, 2005) ....................................16
Gen. Patton Slap Haunts Former GI, CHARLESTON DAILY MAIL, 12 (Mar. 27 1970) .............16
GI Slapped by Ge. Patton in Sicily Is Dead, CEDAR RAPIDS GAZETTE, 7
(Feb. 2, 1971) .......................................................................................................................16
Greg Zoroya, Findings of'Army Healtlz Study, Fifth of Soldiers at PTSD Risk, USA
TODAY, Mar. 6 2008 .............................................................................................................20
Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, Coming home: Accommodating The Special Needs of
Military Veterans to the Criminal Justice System, 7 OHIO ST. J. CRtM. L. 563, Spring,
570 (2010) .................................................... ...9
MARGARETN NOONAN & CHRISTOPHER MUMOLA, VETERANS IN STATE AND FEDERAL
PRISON, 2004, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report 1(2004) ......................................4
Kristina Shevory, tif'hy Veterans Should Get 7'heir Own Courts: As Troops Surge Back
Into Donzestic Live, Incarceration Isn'tAlways the Answer, Atlantic, Dec. 2011 ..............11
Kevin Giles, This Marine's Death Came After He Served in Iraq: When Jonathan
Schulze Came Home From Iraq, He Tried to Live a Normal Life, But the War Kepst
That From Happening, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 26, 2007 .........................................8
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, "Justice for Vets: The National
Clearinghouse for Veterans Treatment Courts," accessed on Jun. 1 2011,
http://www.nadcp.org/JusticeForVets ....................................................................................8
National Association of Drug Court Professionals, "Veterans Treatment Court
Legislation," last visited on Jun. 1 2011, http://www.nadcp.org/JusticeForVetsLegislation ..............................................................................................................................8
iii
Patton Regrets Slapping Soldier, SAN ANTONIO LIGHT, 1(Nov. 23 1943) ..............................16
Private PVrote Family About Being Cuffed, PoRT ARTHUR NEWS, 6 (Nov. 24, 1943) ..............16
Reprimandfor Patton is Denied, FRESNO BEE, 1(Nov. 22 1943) ............................................16
Richard Norton-Taylor, Executed WYVI Soldiers to be Given Pardons, GUARDIAN, Aug,
16,2006at1 ..........................................................................................................................16
RICHARK KULKA ET AL., THE NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS READJUSTMENT STUDY
(1990) .....................................................................................................................................9
U.S. ARMY CENTER FOR HEALTH PROMOTION AND PREVENTITVE MEDICINE,
EPIDEMIOLOGIC CONSULTATION No. 14HK-OB 1U-09: INVESTIGATION oF HoMICIDES
AT FORT CARSON, COLORADO NOVEMBER 2008-MAY2009, ES-1 (July 2009) ....................15
Walter A. Lunden, Military Service and Criminality, 42 J. CRIM. L. CRIMINOLOGY &
POLICE Sci. 766, 766 (1952) ..................................................................................................13
iv
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS
The Amicus, Veterans Defense Project (VDP), Nvas founded to educate the criminal justice
system on the very unique issues veterans face when they become involved in our criminal
justice system. VDP seeks to contribute to and expand upon the work of the National Veterans
Foundation (NVF) a non-profit, 501-C(3) human service organization at the forefront of assisting
veterans from past and current conflicts with reintegration, chemical dependency, homelessness,
service-related mental health disorders, and criminal justice matters, including the establishment
of a trial team and the ptiblication of Def'ending the Vietnam Combat Veteran in 1989.
In February of 2014 the VDP, with the NVF's collaboration, published The Attorney's Guide
to Defending Veterans in Criminal CouNt, which brings together medical expertise on servicerelated mental and physical illness, cultural considerations in dealing with veteran-clients, and
legal expertise on techniques to most effectively advocate for the veteran-defendant. The authors
of this Brief are also authors and editors of that book, and thus have a distinct interest in the
treatment of military personnel in the criminal justice system.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Amici adopt the Statement of Facts set forth in Defendant-Appellant's Merit Brief.
1
ARGUMENT
Proposition Of Law: The Issues and Questions Raised by State v. Belew are of Public or
Great General Interest and so this Court Should Reconsider its Motion to Dismiss as
Improvidently Accepted and Decide the Case on its Merits.
The question of how to treat veterans with service-related disorders at the time of sentencing
is indeed a question. of public and great general interest.l Two separate amicus briefs were filed
in this matter, representing a wide array of concerned Ohio citizens who are passionate about this
cause. In fact, the Ohio Legislature recently amended Ohio's felony sentencing law to include
the consideration of service-related disorders, putting the issue at least at the forefront of
legislator's minds.2 More tellingly perhaps, is the fact that this very Court was divided 4-3 in its
decision to dismiss.3
As Justice O'Neil so eloquently put it "this court has the rare opportunity to lead with
clarity."4 This Court should reconsider its dismissal of Mr. Bewel's case and provide that clarity
to trial and appeals judges who are seeking to understand and properly consider a veterans
service-related disorder at the sentencing stage. There are two reasons for this; first, national
legal trends that recognize and support veterans with service-related disorders show that the
issues presented by Mr. Bewel's case are of great interest, and second, this Court should take the
1 "When a case has been accepted for determination on the merits pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.r. 7.08,
the Supreme Court may later find that there is no substantial constitutional question or question
of public or great general interest, that leave to appeal in a felony case was not warranted, or that
the saine question has been raised and passed upon in a prior appeal. Accordingly, Supreme
Court may sua sponte dismiss the case as having been improvidently accepted or summarily
revers or affirm on the basis precedent." Ohio S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.10.
2 OHto REv. CODE ANN. §2929.12(F) (2013) "The sentencing court shall consider the offender's
military service record and whether the offender has an emotional, mental, or physical
condition that is traceable to the offender's service in the armed forces of the United States
and that was a contributing factor in the offender's commission of the offense or offenses."
3State v. Belew, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-2964, ¶ l..
4Ia'. at¶35.
2
opportunity to correct injustices of the past by clarifying Ohio's standards of review and
sentencing guidelines.
1. CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRENDS AND PRECEDENT DEMONSTRATE PUBLIC OR
GREAT GENERAL INTEREST IN VETERNS AND THEIR SERVICE
RELATED DISORDERS
The American criminal justice system is coming to the understanding that we cannot discard
this generation of criminally-involved veterans in the same way we did in the past. Evidence
abounds that there is a definite legal trend that favors treatment and reintegration over
incarceration. This is largely based on a wide recognition that we failed our veterans in past
generations by focusing too narrowly on punishment as discussed in Section II. Further, given
the advanced medical knowledge of seivice-related disorders, these disorders are increasingly
relevant to the veteran-defendant's mental capacity at every stage of a criminal proceeding, and
not because they excuse the veteran-defendant's conduct.
Service-related disorders are particularly important in the sentencing context. A report by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics analyzing data as of 2004 stated "veterans had shorter criminal
records that nonveterans in State prison but reported prison sentences and expected to serve more
time in prison than nonveterans... On average veterans expected to serve 22 months longer than
nonveterans."5 Fortunately, federal, state, and local governments are beginning to recognize the
unique situation of combat veterans in criminal courts. A few states have passed legislation to
expressly allow the Court to consider the Defendant's service and service-related mental illness
at sentencing; and many counties across the country have created veterans specialty courts to
3
directly address veterans' unique situations and to supervise the veterans rehabilitation. These
are all evidence of a popular-public interest in providing veteran-defendants special
consideration.
A. U.S. Supreme Court Recognizes Service-Related Disorder Relevant in
Sentencing
In Porter v. McCollum,6 The United States Supreme Court reversed both the Florida
Supreme Court and the Ilth Circuit Court to save Mr. Porter's life, holding that a defense
attorney's failure to present a Defendant's combat service and related trauma as a mitigating
factor at sentencing in a capital case is proper grounds for a Strickland claim of prejudicially
ineffective assistance of counsel.8 In that opinion, the Court stated that,
It is ... unreasonable to conclude that Porter's military service would be reduced
to "inconsequential proportions," simply because the jury would also have learned
that Porter went AWOL on more than one occasion. Our Nation has a long
tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,
especially for those who fought on the front lines as Porter did. Moreover, the
relevance of Porter's extensive combat experience is not only that he served
honorably under extreme hardship and gruesome conditions, but also that the jury
might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that combat
took on Porter. The evidence that he was AWOL is consistent with this theory of
mitigation and does not impeach or diminish the evidence of his service. To
5 MARGARET NOONAN & CHRIST'OPHER MUMOLA, VETERANS IN STATE AND FEDERAL PRISON,
2004, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report 1 (2004).
6 Porter v. McCollum, 130 S. Ct. 447 (2009).
7 The Supreme Court in Stricklana'v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), created a two-part
test to determine whether a "convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so
defective as to require reversal of a conviction ... First, the defendant must show
that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so
serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth
Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the
defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant
of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliabl.e. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot
be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process
that renders the result unreliable."
8 Porter v. McCollum, 130 S.Ct. at 455.
4
conclude otherwise reflects a failure to engage with what Porter actually went
tlirough in Korea.9
Similar to the defendant in Porter, the fact that Mr. Bewel had a less than stellar service record
does not impeach or diminish the evidence of Mr. Bewel's service. Regardless, the U.S. Supreme
Court found service-related disorders of great enough interest to grant certiorari. Prior to this
landmark decision, other courts around the Country were also interested, and finding ways to use
the criminal justice system to promote rehabilitation and reintegration of these veterans.
B. Minnesota, California and the Federal Courts Recognize Service-Related
Disorders Relevant in Sentencing
In 2007 and 2008, along with other Minnesota veterans advocates, Brockton Hunter led an
effort to draft and pass legislation that addresses deficiencies in the way the Minnesota's criminal
courts deal with psychologically-injured veterans.10 The law is designed to ensure that mental
health diagnoses and available treatment options are taken into account in sentencing a veteran
whose combat trauma played a role in his or her criminal offense. The law gives the judge the
tools to make an informed decision, recognizing that probationary treatment is often preferable to
a single stint of incarceration in getting to the root of the problem and ensuring long-term public
safety. Completion of treatment is a condition of probation and failure to follow through can
result in execution of a jail or prison sentence. The language of the Minnesota law reads as
follows:
(a) When a defendant appears in court and is convicted of a crime, the court shall inquire
whether the defendant is currently serving in or is a veteran of the armed forces of the United
States.
9 Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
10 Minn. Stat § 609.115 Subd 10.
5
(b) If the defendant is currently serving in the military or is a veteran and has been diagnosed as
having a mental illness by a qualified psychiatrist or clinical psychologist or physician, the
court may:
(1) order that the officer preparing the report under subdivision I consult with the United
States Department of Veterans Affairs, Miimesota Department of Veterans Affairs, or
another agency or person with suitable knowledge or experience, for the purpose of
providing the court with information regarding treatment options available to the
defendant, including federal, state, and local programming; and
(2) consider the treatment recommendations of any diagnosing or treating mental health
professionals together with the treatment options available to the defendant in
imposing sentence.ti
In 2007, California also updated past legislation that had been found ineffective at
dealing with the veterans returning from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.12 California Penal Code,
§ 1170.9 states that:
(a) In the case of any person convicted of a criminal offense who could otherwise be sentenced
to county jail or state prison and who alleges that he or she committed the offense as a result
of sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or
mental health problems stemming from service in the United States military, the court shall,
prior to sentencing, make a determination as to whether the defendant was, or currently is, a
member of the United States military and whether the defendant may be suffering from
sexual trauma, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, or
mental health problems as a result of that service. The court may request, through existing
resources, an assessment to aid in that determination.
(b) If the court concludes that a defendant convicted of a criminal offense is a person described
in subdivision (a), and if the defendant is otherwise eligible for probation and the court places
the defendant on probation, the court may order the defendant into a local, state, federal, or
private nonprofit treatment program for a period not to exceed that which the defendant
would have served in state prison or county jail, provided the defendant agrees to participate
in the program and the court determines that an appropriate treatment program exists.
1 i Minn. Stat § 609.115 Subd 10.
12 Adam Caine, Fallen fNom Grace: Why Treatment Should Be Considered for Convicted Cotrabat
Veterans Suffering fi^om Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, 78 U.M.K.C. L. Rev. 215, 225-29
(2009).
6
Like the Minnesota statute cited above, California has given judges the express authority to
utilize treatment over incarceration while not mandating that the Courts follow any particular
type of sentence.
What the Minnesota and California statutes do, in effect, is make the veteran's service a
relevant sentencing consideration, just as the new version of United States Sentencing Guidelines
§ 5H1.11 did in 2010 in stating that "_Military service may be relevant in determining whether a
departure is warranted, if the military service, individually or in combination with other offender
characteristics, is present to an unusual degree and distinguishes the case from the typical cases
covered by the guidelines."
This multi-state and federal push for such sentencing mitigation guidelines shows that the
public's interests have shifted towards placing a higher priority on the treatment of a veteran's
service-related impairment and less of a priority on a strictly punitive approach to veterandefendants. It seems that, amidst the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public
and the policy makers working on their behalf have made an affirmative decision not to relive
the mistakes made when the Vietnam generation of veterans first came in contact with the
criminal justice system, as discussed in Section II.
C. The Popularity of Veterans Treatment Courts Suggests Public Interest
Veterans treatment courts are further evidence of this trend in changing policy interests and
show that this trend is not limited to the legislative branch. As of June 2, 2011, there were at
least 62 county veterans courts in 26 different states.13 By December 2011, The Atlantic,
reported that "Nearly 80 veterans courts have sprung up across the country over the past four
7
years, and 20 more are expected to open by the end of this year," 14 showing a rapid. growth of
these courts across the country that signals a national acceptance of their underlying principles.
Texas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon and Virginia have passed legislation specifically
permitting the establishment of county veterans treatment courts.l' Other states have done so
directly through county court systems.
These courts follow a variety of models, but all offer diversion to judicially supervised
rehabilitation programs if the veteran is willing to accept responsibility for his or her actions and
get help for any underlying conditions, usually PTSD and/or substance abuse. This structure is
quite similar to long-used drug and mental health specialty court models, but, by using the
existing structure and resources of the VA, these courts are an attractive option to districts that
are under budget strains. Even in districts where there is not a veterans problem-solving court,
this fiscal reasoning is a strong argument in favor of probationary treatment that is unique to
veteran-defendants. These courts are not "get out of jail free" courts that are showing veterans a
preferred status. Rather, these courts often use longer terms of probation than the defendant
would be exposed to in a standard criminal court in order to provide the court with the proper
leverage to ensure the veteran stays committed to the treatment program until rehabilitated. The
level of oversight and accountability is often very demanding. By having other veterans hold
13 National Association of Drug Court Professionals, "Justice for Vets: The National
Clearinghouse for Veterans Treatment Courts," accessed on Jun. 1 (2011),
http://www.nadep.org/JusticeForVets.
14 Kristina Shevory, Why Veterans Should Get Their Own CouNts: As Troops Surge Back Into
Domestic. Life, Incarceration Isn't Always the Answer, ATLANTIC, Dec. 2011.
15 National Association of Drug Court Professionals, "Veterans Treatment Court Legislation,"
last visited on Jun. 1 (2011), http://www.nadcp.org/JustieeForVets-Legislation; Tex. Health and
Safety Code, §617 (2010); Cal. Penal Code, § 1170.9 (2010); Col. Revised Stat., §§ 13-3-101
and 1'l-5-144 (2010); 730111. Compiled Statutes Ann. 167 (2010); Or. Rev. Stat
§ 135.886(2)(j)(3) (2010); and Code of Va., § 2.2-2001.1 (2010).
8
the veteran-client accoluitable, these courts "offer the most easily accepted `tough love'
support."16
The Supreme Court decision in Porter, sentencing statutes and veterans courts have arisen
out of the public's recognition that when our Nation is sending young men and women to prepare
for and fight wars, as San Diego Prosecutor William C. Gentry so perfectly stated, "you are
unleashing certain things in a human being we don't allow in civic society, and getting it all back
in the box can be difficult for some people."17 The nationwide recognition for the need to
properly consider a veteran's service-related disorder, makes the questions raised by Mr. Bewel's
case of public and great general interest. As such, the Court. should reconsider its motion to
dismiss.
II. THE HISTORY OF CRIMINALLY INVOLVED VETERANS REVEALS THE
INJUSTICE THAT OCCURS WHEN SERVICE-RELATED DISORDERS ARE
NOT CONSIDERED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
By reconsidering its motion to dismiss, this Court has an opportunity to correct the wrongs of
the past. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD") was not formally recognized by the
psychiatric community and, more importantly, the Veterans Administration, until 1980, too late
for many psychologically injured Vietnam veterans. Their lives and their trust in the system
were often shattered by that time and many refused treatment when aiid if it was eventually
16 Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, Conzing Home: Accommodating The Special Needs of Military
Veterans to the Criminal Justice S'ystem, 7 OHIO ST. J. CxrM. L. 563, Spring, 570 (2010).
17 Id at 569 (quoting Deborah Sontag & Lizette Alvarez, Across America, Deadly Echoes off
Foreign Battles, N.Y. TIMEs, Jan. 13 (2008) (quoting William C. Gentry, San Diego County
Prosecutor and Iraq Veteran).
9
offered. Ultimately, 31 % of male Vietnam veterans and 27% of female Vietnam veterans have
had PTSD in their lifetime.l s
According to a July 2012 report from the National Academy of Science's Institute of
Medicine, up to 20%, approximately 500,000, of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are suffering
from PTSD.19 The report also acknowledges that, because of underreporting and delayed onset of
PTSD, the true numbers are likely higher.20
In addition to PTSD, the wars of the twenty-first century have introduced a new battlefield
injury: traumatic brain injury ("TBI"). TBIs are typically caused by the concussive shock waves
of improvised explosive devices resulting in physical injuries to the brain as opposed to PTSD's
psychological injury of the mind.21 TBIs are more common in modem wars because advances in
body armor and medical procedures have made it possible for the body to survive injuries that
nearly destroy the brain and, thus, the functionality of the person.22 TBIs are particularly
relevant in the criminal justice context because recent studies are suggesting a potential tie
between TBIs and impulsive violence.z3
1$ RICHARD KULKA ET AL., THE NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS READJUSTMENT STUDY (1990).
19 COMM. ON THE ASSESSMENT OF ONGOING EFFORTS IN THE TREATMENT OF POSTTRAUMATIC
STRESS DISORDER, INST. OF MED. OF THE NAT'L ACADEMIES, TREATMENT FOR POSTTRAUMATIC
STRESS DISORDER IN MILITARY AND VET'ERAN POPULATIONS: INITIAL ASSESSMENT 39 (2012).
20 Id
21 DR. CHRISANNE GORDON, M.D., AND DR. RONALD GLASSER, M.D., THEATTORNEY'S GUIDE TO
DEPkNDLNG VETERANS IN CRIMINAL COURT.' TRAUMATIC BRAININJURIES (TBl): THE INVISIRLE
IN.IURY201 (BROCKTON D. HUNTER, ESQ. AND RYAN C. ELSE, ESQ., 2014).
22 Id
23 WARREN Lux, A NEUR01'SYCHIATRIC PERSPPECTIV"E ON TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, 44 JOURNAL OF
REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND D'EV. 951-961 (2007); SEEALS©, SHERISE FERGUSON &
EMIL COCCARO, dIISTORY OF 1^IILD TO 1VDDER.ATE TRA UNIATIC BRAIN I7VJURYAND AGGRESSION
IN PHYSICALLY HEALTHY PARTICIPANTS WITH AND WIT H© UT PERSoNALITY DISORDER, 23 J.
PERSONALITY DISORDERS 230-239 (JUN. 2009)(FINDING THAT AGGRESSION SCORES WERE
ELEVATED AS A FLiNCTION OF TBI).
10
History shows that veterans from every conflict have returned home with ser-vice-related
disorders and that, as a result, they committed disproportionate levels of criminal offenses.
Rather than addressing the underlying disorder, our Nation's past approach has often been to
brutally punish these veterans in hopes of preventing their aberrant behavior. This failed.
Rather, generations of veterans were pushed out of civil society, leading to greater criminal
problems such as motorcycle gangs and unchecked substance abuse. With the current generation
of combat veterans, we have the opportunity to use a criminal offense as an intervention point at
which we can ensure treatment of the underlying service-related disorder and better reintegration
with the civil society on whose behalf the veteran gave so much.
A. Post-War Crime Waves Involving Combat Veterans Following Every Major
Conflict Evidence the Inherent Link between Combat Trauma and Criminal
Behavior
Historic research reveals a pattern of veteran-committed crime waves following every major
conflict. Though scientific studies have only recently been conducted on this issue, a look back
at history through this lens clearly reveals this pattern. It was, for instance, largely Civil War
veterans who put the "wild" in the "wild west."
Following the American Revolutionary War, a marked increase in crime caused many states
to institute new laws and penalties in response.24 A Revolutionary veteran, describing conditions
in South Carolina after the war, wrote, "highway robbery was a common occurrence, and horsestealing so frequent that the Legislature made it a crime punishable with death."25
Studies conducted. after the Civil War, World War I and World War II found a
disproportionate number of veterans in the criminal justice system. Following the Civil War, a
24 ALLAN NEVINS, THE AMERICAN STATES DURING AND AFTER THE REVOLUTION 1775-1789 454
(1924).
11
great wave in crime and disorder was documented.26 One prison in Pennsylvania reported a
large influx of prisoners in the last three months of 1865, "most in poor physical condition, and
nine-tenths incapacitated and demoralized by the war."27 In 1866 they reported an
unprecedented influx, three-fourths of Nvhom had fought in the war and were "shattered" by their
experiences.z8 Nationwide, in 1866 two-thirds of all commitments to state prisons in northern
states were men who had seen service in the war.Z9
A similar pattern of veteran-committed crimes was noted in Europe following WWI. In
1920, one English writer observed:
The war has destroyed with a hand more desolating than the Black Death or the
most terrible plagues of history. But its consequences do not end with
destruction. The people who have taken serious part in it are not the same people
as those who went into it. . . . They are changed peoples. 'They have passed
through an experience which has altered habits, temper, outlook, in five year,
more than fifty years of ordinary life would have altered them. Some of the
consequences of that experience are obviously bad. The epidemic of crimes of
violence is the natural sequel of war, for men learn in that school to think little of
life. The same increase of crime of this kind followed the Napoleonic Wars both
here and in France.30
25 Id. (citing JOSEPH JOHNSON, TRADITIONS AND REMINISCENCES, 400 (1851)).
26 Edith Abbott, Crime and the War, 9 J. AM. INST. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 33, 41 (1918).
27 Id. at 43.
2sld
29 E.C. Wines & Theodore Dwight, The Reformation of Prison Discipline, N. AM. REv., Vol.
CV, 580-81 (1867), available at
http://books.google. com/books?id=Kn8FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PP7&1pg=PP 7&dq=Ticknor+and+Fi
e1ds,+The+North+American+Review,+Boston,+V o1.+C V,+1867&source=bl&ots=5JWYeUkEQ
4&sig=01 AOd6Lbo61 dQYVxwFXhEvCXwYc&h1=en&sa=X&ei=_OSDTS8Boqk8AST6Pj sBw&ved=OCEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Ticknor%20and%o20Fields%2C%
20The%20North%o20American%20Review%2C%20Boston% o2C%20Vo1.%20CV%2C%o201867
&f=false.
30 Edith Abbott, The Civil War and the Crime Wave of 1865-70, 1 SoC. SERV. REv. 212, 212
(1927).
12
In the United States, post-WWI veteran-committed crimes were also a cause for grave
concern. The President of the Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, in his annual address
in 1919, stated:
Last year saw the ending of the War. From England to France, and in our own
country, statistics have been gathered which show that serious crime, which had
been on the decrease during the period of the War was again stalking in the
foreground.... The newspapers are filled with accounts of crimes of such daring
and boldness as to make the average citizen stand aghast at the manner in which
the security of life and rights of property are ruthlessly disregarded and
imperiled."31
A study entitled Military Service and Criminality,32 published in 1952, a few years after
WWII, tallied the number of men committed to 1.1 prisons in the upper-Midwest during 1947,
1948 and 1949 and found that fully one third of them were veterans.
Similarly, a study of Vietnam veterans receiving care for PTSD in the VA system during the
mid-1980's found that almost half of all Vietnam veterans suffering from PTSD had been
arrested or in jail at least once, 34.2 % more than once, and 11.5 % reported being convicted of a
felony.33
In the case of the Vietnam generation, involvement in the criminal justice system has
lingered for decades. A 1998 Department of Justice study found that more than 20 years after
the war, approximately a quarter million veterans, a large portion from the Vietnam era, were
still housed in our nation's prisons.34 A similar study in 2004 found that Vietnam veterans were
still a majority within the prison system, but the study reported that "despite a median age gap of
31 Betty Rosenbaum, The Relationship Between lVar and Crime in the United States, 30 J. CRIM.
L. & CRIMINOLOGY 722, 730 (1940) (citing Hugo Pam, Annual Address of the President of the
Institute of Criminology, 10 J. AM. INST. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLoGY 327, 327 (1919)).
32 Walter A. Lunden, Military Service and Criminality, 42 J. CRIM. L. CRIMINOLOGY & POLICE
SCi. 766, 766 (1952).
33 RICHARD KULKA ET AL., THE NATIONAL VIETNAM VETERANS READJUSTMENT STUDY (1990).
13
nearly 20 years, there was little measurable difference between State prisoners who served in the
military during the Vietnam-era and those who enlisted after the close of the Cold War (1990 or
later)."3' Both groups were convicted of the same types of crimes, had similar drug patterns, and
had a majority reporting persisting mental health problems.36
Those who attempt to deny the link between war trauma and crime often cite this same 1998
Department of Justice study cited above, pointing out that veterans are imprisoned in smaller
percentages than the civilian population. What they overlook, however, is that since WWI, the
military has aggressively screened out those it deems psychologically or morally unfit. During
the call-up for World War II, for instance, 1,681,000 men were rejected and excluded from. the
draft for emotional, mental, or educational disorders or deficiencies.37 Another 500,000 were
subsequently separated from the Army during training on psychiatric or behavioral grounds.38
This recruit screening continued through Vietnam and into our current conflicts. Thus, any
direct comparison of incarceration rates between veterans and the civilian population is flawed.
Given the military's screening, the fact that veterans are incarcerated at even close to the same
rates as the civilian population is alai-ming and is prima facie evidence that military service,
itself, played a role.
The most recent and definitive tie between combat trauma and criminal behavior comes from
the military, itsel£ In 2009, following a highly-publicized wave of homicides and other violent
34 BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, VETERANS IN PRISON OR JAIL 1 (2000), available at
1-ittp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
35 BUREAU OF JUSTICE ST A'TISTICS, NCJ 217199, VETERANS IN STATE AND FEDERAL PRISON,
2004 6 (2007), available at http:Ubjs.ojp.usdoj.govlcontent/publpdflvsfp04.pdf.
36 Id
37 DAVID H. MARLON'dE, RAND CORP., PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOSOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF
COMBAT AND DEPLOYMENT 48 (2001).
38 Id
14
crimes committed by recently-returning combat soldiers on and around Fort Carson, Colorado,
the Army commissioned a study called the Epidemiological Consultation, or EPICON for
short.39
The EPICON team found two major factors contributed to post-deployment violent behavior:
(1) repeated deploynlents and (2) the intensity of combat in those deployments. The study
concluded with a carefully-worded assertion that "survey data from this investigation suggest a
possible association between increasing levels of combat exposure and risk for negative
behavioral outcomes."40 In other words, the military finally confirmed what civilian sociologists
had long believed: combat contributes to crime. Soldiers come home different. Mr. Belews
came home different. By sending young men and women to war, a country is unintentionally
bringing violence back on itself.
B. PTSD's Stigma Has Led to Aggressive Punishment of Veterans with ServiceRelated Disorders
Though PTSD has been informally recognized for millennia, approaches to dealing with it
have varied widely. After battle, many Native American and other tribal societies segregated
their warriors from the rest of the tribe, sometimes for weeks, where they were physically
cleansed of the blood from battle, and spiritually cleansed of their traumatic experiences. Some
of the rituals were intended to transfer to the stain of "bloodguilt" from the warrior to his people
as a whole. This shared responsibility was believed to lift the spiritual weight of combat from
39 U.S. ARMY CENTER FOR HEALTH PROMOTION AND PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, EPIDEMIOLOGIC
CONSULTATION NO. 14-IIK-OBIU-09: INVESTIGATION OF HOMICIDES AT FORT CARSON,
COLORADO NOVEMBER 2008-MAY 2009, ES-1 (July, 2009).
40 Id
15
the shoulders of the warrior and to ease his transition back into peace. Only when the warrior
was ready to retinite with the tribe, and the tribe with the warrior, did the reunion occur.41
Industrialized nations and their militaries have historically taken a tougher approach with the
psychologically injured. Soldiers suffering psychological injuries have often been stigmatized
and even punished. During WWII, General George Patton famously struck at least two
psychologically injured soldiers he came across in Army hospitals, calling them cowards and
malingerers. The press picked up on the story, causing a swell of anger among the American
people and Patton was nearly relieved of his command.42
Some psychologically injured troops received the ultimate punishment. The British
government recently issued posthumous pardons to 306 of its soldiers from World War I who
were executed without trial at the battle front for cowardice or desertion, recognizing today that
they likely suffered from PTSD.43
Not only were psychological injured soldiers killed during WWI, they were also tortured.
Dr. Lewis Yealland working at a French hospital was taking over treatment of a twenty-four year
old private who had received nine months worth of the following types of treatment for warrelated mental illness: "he had been strapped in a chair for twenty minutes at a time while strong
electricity was applied to his neck and throat; lighted cigarettes had been applied to the top of
41 EDWARD TICK, WAR AND THE SOUL, HEALING OUR NATION'S VETERANS FROM
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER, 209-216 (Quest BOoks, 2005).
42 Pt°ivate Wrote Family About Being Cuff ed, PORT ARTHUR NEws, 6 (Nov. 24, 1943);
Reprinzand for Patton is Denied, FRESNO BEE, 1(Nov. 22, 1943); Patton Regrets Slapping
Soldier, San Antonio Light, 1(l0iov. 23, 1943); Gen. Patton Slap Haunts Former GI,
CHARLESTO1v DAILY MAIL, 12 (Mar. 25, 1970); and GI Slappe.d by Gen. Patton in Sicily Is Dead,
CEDAR RAPIDS GAZETTE, 7 (Feb. 2, 1971).
43 Richard Norton-Taylor, Executed WWI SoldieNs to be Given Pardons, GUARDIAN, Aug. 16,
2006, at 1.
16
this tongue and hot plates had been placed at the back of his mouth."44 The goal of such
treatment was "necessary to supply the disciplinary element which must be invoked if the patient
is one of those who prefer not to recover."45 Dr. Yealland apparently believed that the failures of
this young private's treatment were only the result of too little electro-shock therapy. Speaking
of his oNvri treatment of the private, he said,
After a few more hours of electricity the patient could say ah, then whisper, then
stammer. But just when it seemed to be working, the patient developed a tremor
in his left arm. This too was attacked by electricity, but before it disappeared it
had to be chased from the right arm, left leg, and finally the right leg with each
part similarly treated.46
In the aftermath of WWII, the United States VA was guilty of similar treatment of our
veterans. 'I'he VA had 102,000 hospital beds full and 20,700 patients in waiting, 60% of which
were in need of psychiatric care.47 Maintaining these patients could cost as much as $35,000 per
year, but George Washington University professor Walter Freeman created the ice pick
lobotomy to be able to treat certain psychoses ¢8 Using a hammer, doctors would tap an ice pick
through the patient's eye socket and into the prefrontal lobe, which was then severed from the
rest of the brain.49
World War Il's most decorated soldier, Audie Murphy, is credited with forcing the United
States government to study PTSD and extend benefits to psychologically injured veterans.
Audie returned home an American Hero and went on to become a major Hollywood movie star.
44 B. SHEPARD, A WAR OF NERVES: SOLDIERS AND PSYCHIATRISTS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY
77 (Harvard University Press, 2001).
41 Id. at 76-77.
46 Id. at 78 (emphasis added).
47 B. SHEPARD, A WAR OF NERVES: SOLDIERS AND PSYCHIATRISTS IN THE TWENTIET'H CENTURY,
33 (Harvard University Press, 2001); and Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Facilities
Management, 70 Years of VA History (Apr. 2001).
49 ROBERT YOUNGSON AND IAN SCHOTT, MEDICAL BLUNDERS (1\TYU Press, 1996).
4 9 ra.
17
He also secretly suffered severe PTSD. He became a chronic alcoholic and prescription drug
addict who later admitted he slept with a loaded gun under his pillow every night after the war.
His wife reported many incidents of domestic violence including an instance in which he held a
gun to her head. Audie eventually sought help for his condition and then broke the taboo against
publicly discussing war-related psychological injuries.
Today, the military is making strides in removing the stigma of PTSD among its ranks.
Troops heading into combat are educated about PTSD and encouraged to seek help if they need
it. The military also now deploys "combat stress officers," basically battlefield psychologists, to
the front lines to screen and treat troops as they come out of battle.
'Though the military is making progress in removing the stigma, it still has a long way to go.
The military is under unprecedented strain as it struggles to meet the demands of two extended
conflicts. Military leaders are often caught between a rock and a hard place. Though they are
now trained to recognize and encourage treatment of mental health disorders, they are also under
pressure to field combat-effective units. Sometimes they relegate mental health treatment to a
secondary priority. A series of 2007 media reports found systemic failures in mental health
treatment of psychologically injured troops at Ft. Carson, Colorado.50 The reports foLU1d a
pattern by leadership of denying their troops' requests for treatment, stigmatizing those who
were getting help and even kicking some out of the military. The reports spurred investigations
50 Daniel Zwerdling, Gaps in ltlental Cc.cNe Pef°sist for Fort C'arson Soldiers, NAT'L PUB. RADIO,
May 24, 2007.
18
by Congress and the Department of Defense which. confirmed remaining flaws in the military
mental health svstem.51
The very culture of the military is also an issue. Military culture, by necessity, puts great
value on strength, both physical and mental. Soldiers sent into combat face the most horrific
experiences imaginable. Only the strong survive. Over the centuries, military training has
become ever-more sophisticated in conditioning troops to operate effectively and complete their
missions, even when faced with imminent death. A soldier's reputation within a combat unit is
largely based on how "cool" they are under fire.
This "warrior" mindset becomes deeply ingrained and many psychologically injured warriors
deny they have a problem, even to themselves. A 2008 RAND Corporation study found that, of
the 1.7 million who had served in the war zones at that time, over 300,000 were suffering from
PTSD, and another 320,000 from Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).52 Only about half of these
troops, it found, had reported or sought help for their condition.53 According to RAND, those
veterans who declined help did so out of fear that they will lose the respect of their comrades,
jeopardize their security clearance or harm their chances of promotion.54 Many veterans carry
this value system with them even after they leave the military and come home.
51 Daniel Zwerdling, Pentagon Report Cites Mental Health Concerns, NAT'L PUB. RADIO, June
15, 2007.
52 T. TANIELIAN, L.R. JAycox, T.L. SCHELL, G.N. MARSHALL, M.A. BURNAM, C. EIBNER, B.R.
KARNEY, L.S. MEREDITH, J.S. RINGEL, M.E. VAIANA, AND THE INVISIBLE WOUNDS STUDY TEAM,
RAND CoRP., MG-720/1-CCF, INVISIBLE WOUNDS OF WAR: StrMMARY AND
RECOMMENDAT'IONS FOR ADDRESSING PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COGNITIVE INJURIES 64 (2008)
[hereinafter Invisible Wounds of War].
53 id
54
Id.
19
C. Iraq and Afghan Veterans Present an Opportunity to Correct Past Mistakes
More than 1.8 million Americans have now served in Iracl or Afghanistan. The RAND study
cited above is so troubling because it shows that the same problems seen in past conflicts are
prevalent in the current generation of veterans.5'
The vast majority of Vietnam veterans served a single twelve month tour in-country while
many veterans of Iraq/Afghanistan will have served two, three, four or more tours. "People
aren't designed to be exposed to the horrors of combat repeatedly. And it wears on them,"
General George Casey, Army chief of Staff, stated in a 2008 press conference.56 General Casey
was announcing the results of a recent Army study which found that levels of PTSD climb
significantly with repeated combat deployments.57
Evidence indicates that combat operations in Iraq are very intense. According to a 2004
study conducted by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, which surveyed combat
infantrymen just back from Iraq:
- 94 percent reported receiving small-arms fire;
- 86 percent reported knowing someone who was injured or killed;
- 68 percent reported seeing dead or seriously injured Americans;
- 51 percent reported handling or uricovering human remains;
- 77 percent reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy;
- 48 percent reported being responsible for the death of an enemy combatants;
- 28 percent reported being responsible for the death of a noncombatant.58
ss Id
56Greg Zorova, Findings ofArmy Health Study, Fifth of Soldiers at PTSD Risk, USA TODAY,
Mar. 6, 2008, available at http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-06-soldierstress_N.htin?csp=34).
57 Id. (citing Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) V, supra note 4).
58 Charles Hoge, Carl Castro, Stephen Messer, Dennis McGurk, Dave Cotting, & Robert
Koffman, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Walter Reed Army Institute of
Research, Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care,
351 NEw ENG. J.oF MED. 13-22 (2004).
20
Note that the above-study was conducted in 2004, early in the war and the troops surveyed in
that study had only completed one combat tour. Many of those same troops have now likely
served two, three, four or more tours and the statistics cited above would certainly be much
higher today.
IJnfortunately, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was not initially provided sufficient
additional funding to handle the large influx of Iraq and Afghan vets seeking PTSD treatment.
Several highly publicized scandals, one of which involved a Minnesota Marine who killed
himself after reportedly being turned away from a VA hospital, have forced the goverrunent to
significantly increase resources toward necessary psychological care.59
Today, care for our psychologically injured veterans is improving. Our offices have
represented many veteran-clients from the current conflicts. What we are seeing is a criminal
justice system that is learning from the lessons of the past and a VA that is adapting its care to
provide substantive treatment to veterans with service-related mental health and chemical
dependency problems. One example of such is the VA's Residential Rehabilitation Treatment
Programs (RRTP). These are a series of intensive inpatient treatment programs aimed directly at
the veteran's specific needs such as P'I'SD through the PTSD-RRTP, chemical dependency
through the Substance Abuse-RRTP, and occupational therapy through the Compensated Work
59 Kevin Giles, This Marine's Death Came After He Served in Iraq: When Jonathan Schulze
Came Home From Iraq, He Tried to Live a Normal Life, But the LVar Kept That From
Happening, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE, Jan. 26, 2007; Charles M. Sennott, Told to Wait, A
Marine Dies: VA Care in Spotlight after Iraq War Veteran's Suicide, BOSTON GLOBE, Feb. 11,
2007; Dan Ephron and Sarah Childress, How the U.S. Is Failing Its u'ar Veterans, NEWSWEEK,
Mar. 5, 2007.
21
Therapy - Transitional Residence (CWT-TR).60 These developments show that there has been
recognition that the status quo was unsatisfactory and that our veterans deserve better recognition
and treatment of their service-related disorders.
We urge the Coui-t to continue this trend of giving our veterans the treatment and recognition
they deserve by reconsidering the motion to dismiss. The clarity this Court can provide to trial
and appellate courts will bring us one step closer to correcting past mistakes.
CONCLUSION
This case sets the tone for the future treatment of our veterans at the sentencing stage of their
criminal proceedings. Without guidance from this Court, future trial judges may repeat the
mistakes of the past by considering service-related disorders "excuses" - suggesting that the
veteran offender was not willing to accept the consequences of his actions - while in reality
service-related disorders are a piece of the puzzle that explains the veteran offender's conduct
and entitles him to consideration of a lesser sentence. This Court's deliberation of the questions
presented by Mr. Bewel's case will prevent injustice not only to Mr. Bewel, but also to the other
veterans who will come into Ohio's criminal courts. The Court should reconsider its motion to
dismiss.
60 DEP'T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, MENTAL HEALTH RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION TREATMENT
PROGRAM (MH RRTP), Veterans Health Administration Handbook 1162.02, 4 (Dec. 22, 2010),
available at http:/fwwwl .va.gov/vhapublications/ViewPublication.asp?pub_ID=2354.
22
Respectfully submitted,
9
BROCKTON D. HUNTER
BROCKTON D HUNTER, PA
3033 EXCELSIOR BLVD.
SUITE 550
MrNNEApOLIS, MN 55416
Attorneys for the Amicus
Veterans Defense Project
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Brock Hunter, cerfify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via electronic mail to Assistant
Prosecuting Attorney David Cooper, [email protected], and also Stephen Hardwick,
Assistant Public Defender, [email protected], on this 21st day of July, 2014.
BROCK HUNTER
23