For more information on the lack of public and press access to United States v. Pfc. Manning, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights, which filed a petition requesting the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) "to order the Judge to grant the public and press access to the government's motion papers, the court's own orders, and transcripts of proceedings, none of which have been made public to date."
This transcript of the Article 39(a) Session held on November 8, 2012 at Fort Meade, Maryland in US v Pfc. Manning was taken by hand from the public gallery. It, therefore, may contain omissions or errors. All amendments or updates will be noted.
Judge: Army Col. Denise Lind
Prosecution: Major Ashden Fein, Captain Joe Morrow, Captain Angel Overgaard, Captain Hunter Whyte
Defense: Mr. David Coombs, Captain Joshua Tooman, Major Thomas Hurley
Col. Carl Coffman, Commander of the US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Special Convening Authority
Please be seated. This Article 39(a) Session is called to order...go over house keeping before bringing in the witness...prosecution request for leave on...OCA interrogatories...
[Appellate exhibit 379] ....after [yesterday's] session, defense and the Government [had a] discussion. [From a previous session defense and the Government arranged that the] Government would review [defense interrogatories related to the Speedy Trial motion in lieu of calling witnesses from the Original Classification Authorities witnesses who testify in person]...Government felt confused [about certain defense questions]...we proposed different language. We gave...this morning to defense....once that is done we will offer to the Court. [Fein is saying that the questions will be disseminated to the OCA's and then answers returned to Government counsel then given to defense.]
[This next part concerns interrogatories from the defense to the prosecution concerning the Speedy Trial motion. Interrogatories to prosecution were arranged in lieu of defense calling witnesses from the various federal agencies concerning discovery.] ...form of different commands the prosecution would provide to Court and defense via an affidavit.
...because of all that an unanticipated number of questions from defense...prosecution has asked Court for motion to leave...26 November to 5 December to answer 137 questions. Prosecution submitted request for leave last night.
Your motion says that defense does not object. [Judge Lind reads from the Government's motion] ...one, Notify me by 8 November...two, continuance till 5 December. [Judge Lind asks defense if they have an objection.]
...concerned Government agencies will not respond... I am deferring ruling on OCA from responses. [This section here concerns the Judge asking if the Government agencies will answer in a timely fashion with the Government's motion for continuance suspense date...]
...Government did not say they anticipated that happening...
...will agencies participate?
We don't anticipate that... [Fein is saying that he does not anticipate that the Government will not get their answers from OCAs and other federal agencies back in time]
Granted. Government please ensure that the case calendar is updated.
Parties met briefly in an [RCM] 802 [conference]...[concerning] Government MRE [Military Rules for Evidence] 505(g) motion in regards to unclassified motion [NB as per a previous ruling by the Court that every time the Government files an ex parte motion for MRE 505(g) review for limited disclosure, the Government must file a unclassified version for defense.] I am confused with that motion, So I have scheduled an ex parte review. Part of the motion [was] discussed yesterday to allow defense to look at metadata on media in the redacted motion filed by [the Government with the] Court. Defense [said] yesterday, you were not ready to discuss? [missed...]
They [defense forensic experts] will look at [digital media and files in question as per parameters of the Government motion] and [if there is a problem] with [the parameters set forth in the] the un-redacted motion bring back to the Court.
...search terms provided to defense.
...I need technical order, Government please provide... Any other issue before Coffman?
[to Government] ...more questions, talked about notebook of information...Col. Coffman...number 11, enclosure 78...is tab one same as enclosure?
...enclosure 80 spread throughout the binder...as Court scrolls, see number 80...that is placed within the binder...[missed...]...very first one...12 August 2010, number 8...this binder is appellate exhibit 376 alpha [376(a)], defense has additional documents in appellate exhibit 376(b).
...I have provided a copy for Court with the Court reporter.
[to defense] No objection for Coffman to have the documents, defense?
US CALLS Col. Carl Coffman... [Col. Carl Coffman enters the Court room towards the witness stand.]
PROSECUTION SWEARS IN COL. CARL COFFMAN
Are you Col. Carl R. Coffman....[Transcriber needs to verify that Coffman is Chief of Staff], NATO Training Mission Afghanistan...former Special Convening Authority?
Col. Carl Coffman
Thank you. ...you came all the way from Afghanistan...[I am going to give you start by giving you] a roadmap of questions...[we will start with] background, [then] following period of delay to restart RCM 706 [board] early February, ...actual delay, ...706 [board] completed until Article 32... [Government then starts with asking Col. Coffman on background.] You are [Chief of Staff - need to verify exact title]...NATO Training Mission Afghanistan...until August [2012 you were the Commander [US Army Garrison] Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall...responsible for installation support services...for reserves National Capital Region? Who did you rely on?
Make up of command...?
Three locations Fort Meyer, Fort McNair, Headquarters Battalion, which included two companies...in addition Special Convening Authority for 6,500 soldiers...responsible for UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice] for these individuals.
How many [Court Martials]?
Twenty-four to thirty at any given time.
Explain why the difference in numbers. 6,500 soldiers...handful of work?
Headquarters had two subordinate commands, two company commands, and a Battalion Commander accountable for soldiers...don't directly work for me, but for Other Government Agencies.
Executive Officer of Secretary of Army installation...[Military Assistant and Executive Officer for the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment).]
SES [Senior Executive Service] ...civilian Major...Lt. Col. Assistant ...primarily responsible for outside, executive officer primarily responsible for inside office.
You have experience working with Senior Government officials?
..commander of [US Army Garrison, Hunter Army Airfield]
...assume command of [Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall]...?
...Special Convening Authority through...?
...until change of command.
Most UCMJ in last command as brigade...runs gamut...any thing from minor misconduct to something significant.
...how many cases?
Roughly a dozen.
What is tracker?
....[because] big population had tracker listed all actions...go bi-weekly conduct, the fallen, and UCMJ.
...how many Court martials?
Describe relationship between trial counsel and Convening Authority?
...as commander Staff Judge Advocate and trial counsel...
...rely on trial counsel?
...no, rely on commanders...not just trial counsel...
If they approach me with document...?
Discuss, give consideration not only to trial counsel...
...but also defense?
[had] the option of a leadership course...
Now we are going to talk about delays. [Prosecution hands the witness, Col. Carl Coffman a binder identified at appellate exhibit 376 alpha.] I am handing you appellate exhibit 376 alpha. These documents are...please refrain from opening up or flipping... What was the status when the case came to you?
...case came to me [in the midst of an] Article 32 request for delay.
...before you? [this question concerns a delay in effect when Coffman assumed command and became Special Convening Authority in August 2010.]
Yes. When the case came to me it had a delay in effect.
...did you order the same?
...look at Tab 4
this is your document...?
Chief of forensic [psychiatry] at Walter Reede...
...consult with trial counsel?
Yes. Initial suspense was two weeks.
Did defense ask for this [sanity board]?
Tab one, page eight. Take a look at the document.
Major Hurley [defense] to me...11 August .
What is it?
Defense request for a delay till 706 [board also known as the sanity board] complete.
Defense request this before..?
Act on this for defense...?
Page nine, tab one. What is it?
My memo to Col. Almanza granting delay.
3 August  worked...sanity board?
[missed...] No time to complete full review.
Tab one, page 16. Remember dealing with...?
My approval of an extension [till 706 board was complete].
Email between Dr. Sweda and defense, and cc'd to other trial counsel...discussion was 706 [board], and length to complete...
What was the updated suspense date...?
[Was it actually completed in the time frame of the] sex weeks suspense?
Several reasons. Sanity board needed security clearances...process of preliminary classification to determine what [Pfc.] Manning will talk about...
Tab [?, Page? 23 and 24] Read over. What is the date?
25 August .
From defense to me requesting for appointment of an expert in forensic psychiatry.
Defense ask for a delay?
Don't remember particular delay, we needed expert with [clearance].
...706 until defense got expert....
Act on this delay from defense...?
Next tab. What is it?
25 August . Approval of sanity board delay until defense appointed expert with TS-SCI [Top Secret / Sensitive Compartmented Information]...
Did defense request TS-SCI?
Turn to page 46, tab one.
Request from defense for TS-SCI who is doctor to me dated 2 September .
Act on request...?
Tab [?, page? 27]
12 October 2010.
Memo back to defense approving the request.
You said there were two reasons why the sanity board did not complete...in six weeks.
Defense requested expert with [security clearance]. Request was unusual before we appointed board, we needed to determine if Pfc. Manning would discuss anything classified [This is in reference to a classification review the Government required for the RCM 706 "sanity board"]...if there is classified documents [that would] come out.
Tab [?, page? 28 and 29] Date?
26 August . To me from defense. Request for delay from 706 classification...defense [notice] we will need to reveal classified information. They requested any results from OCA [Original Classification Authorities] be released as well.
Did you delay the 706 [board] until review complete?
Classification of charged documents...?
2 September ... [missed...]
706 sanity board review...so we moved on with the 706...
Did you act on the defense's 26 August request?
How...protect classified information?
...issued protective order.
Tab one, pages 30 to 34. Protective order. Recognize?
Yes. Date 17 September 2010, consulted with trial counsel.
After...defense would discuss TS-SCI info...anything else?
...security experts to determine of classified.
...assume he [Pfc. Manning] would need to discuss TS-SCI [for RCM 706 sanity board]?
[What did you] determine?
...preliminary classification review.
...memo primary classification reviews. What [?] will be discussed to know classification of documents...preliminary [review]...[what classified information would be] revealed to board members, etc.
...after defense alleged that TS-SCI would be discussed...?
We had a general idea...TSC-SCI clearances not easy to get.
Consult with trial counsel...?
Tab one, page 36 to 38?
Date 18 September 2010, defense to me, defense response back to me on preliminary classification review.
Page [?] to 40, Tab one?
22 September 2010, my response to Coombs, going to conduct preliminary classification review.
Not that I recall.
Turn to pages 41 to 42, Tab one.
Defense document 28 September , defense to me, in reference to a preliminary classification review [for RCM 706 sanity board].
What are some of the things requested?
They understood. So, no more argument regarding preliminary classification review. They understood their obligation to protect classified information.
2 echo [2e]?
...preliminary classification review, [classified] information going to be released, have one security expert, need another...
Granted to defense...?
Look at document on page 43, tab one.
12 October 2010. Memo from me to defense about additional security expert at TS-SCI.
Do you remember it included page 44, tab one?
Document from two experts to me and the subject and preliminary classification review dated 13 December 2010.
What did they tell you?
Confirmed TS-SCI would be discussed. We then focused on getting 706 board security clearances.
How long [does it normally take to get a TS-SCI clearance]?
Could take up to a year depending on the individual.
...reason why...delay in 706 board?
We gave extension on 706...
Why delay 706...? How did you account for the delay...?
Account for the delay memorialized in documents...[in addition in terms of communications] we had memorandum, emails, and phone calls. I don't recall specific document.
Requests for delay, approvals for delays...what types of documents?
Accounted for four delays through out prior to the Article 32.
Yes. Every 30 days.
...delay...accounting memorandum. [He is saying that every delay had an accounting memorandum.]
Turn to page 45 and 46, tab one.
...accounting of executable delay memo for the record, for me.
Page 45 to 50, tab one?
Period it covered...?
...each different, not set standard, 30 days, [but] different time period...
Page 45, Tab one...? 12 October ?
August 2010, you started [as Special Convening Authority]?
Yes. When case came to me, ...already under delay. Defense ...responsible for the delay....[accounting memoranda] memorialize entire case.
12 July to October... [missed]
...page 48, tab one?
12 October  to 10 November 
page [?], tab [?]?
10 November  to 17 December 
17 December  to 14 January 2011.
14 January  date of memo to 15 February .
...pages 45 to 50 for delays from 12 July 2010 to 15 February 2011?
...page 45 12 October 2010 memorandum...walk me through.
Purpose of the first paragraph to provide what is in the memorandum. Second paragraph explains time period. Third paragraph [gives] reasons for the delay. Sent to prosecution and defense...
Paragraph three [gives] reasons for executable delay...?
Do you remember when...after mid December, finalized preliminary classification review...remember when sanity board resumed...?
Beginning of February...
Talk about that delay. Go to Tab 2, pages 1 to 6.
Memo dated 3 February from me to chief of forensic psychiatry at Walter Reede to resume 706 board.
...page two, tab two. What special security measures...for this?
They had to have TS-SCI and...read on according to the protective order [that had been] written...discuss that security experts would be available.
Paragraph 6, subparagraph delta...other measures?
Interview [for the RCM 706 sanity board, one of them] would need to be conducted in a SCIF [Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility]...because TS=SCI would be discussed.
...memo to someone at Walter Reede?
Chief od Staff...Psychiatry at Walter Reede.
Familiar with requests to Walter Reede...?
...Severe [wounded]...soldiers...Headquarters submit to my command...National [Calvary]...come to Walter Reede...of Wounded Warriors...ongoing behavioral healthcare account for... [Coffman is saying that he has experience dealing with requests at Walter Reede in his professional capacities. ]
You gave 30 days for the 706 sanity board...?
Recall four weeks.
Paragraph 13, page six...?
Yes. Four weeks until beginning of March .
No. They continued to conduct interviews...kept having scheduling difficulties with SCIF. Trial counsel, [Major] Fein, updated me on case every week...phone call every week...or email update...let me know sanity board having challenges getting complete. Travel issues, scheduling issues with...
Emails to and with trial counsel. [NB When Coffman says trial counsel he is referring the prosecution.]
phone calls from [Major] Fein once a week.
Why was the [last interview] so difficult to schedule?
One...schedule themselves... Two...schedule SCIF, try to do it after duty hours.
Why after [duty hours? Why on the weekend]...?
...high visibility case...didn't want him exposed to media attention for sanity board. ...in DC not to many Government buildings are occupied on the weekend. He [Pfc. Manning] doesn't need media attention...
After 3 March...?
..asked for additional delay going before the [706 board]... Keep going...gave them additional suspense... I gave them until the end of the month. They had one interview left in April... Request was they thought by the 10th. ...believe it actually happened on the 11th. I didn't give them a month, but I gave them more time.
...page 7 and 8, tab two of appellate exhibit 376(a). What is this?
Request for extension from Dr. Sweda, forensic psychiatrist. I did not correspond directly with Dr. Sweda. Trial counsel was dealing with him.
You were being updated?
[Missed but affirmative.]
Did you act on the request for an extension of the sanity board?
...granting extension. 16 April must be complete...Came back 15 April, said 22 April...
Update 22 April...?
Ordered sanity board to resume early February...reported 22 April [as complete]?
Page 11 and 12, tab 2. What is this?
Accounting memo 18 March 2011 for 15 February to 15 March time period...reason what I gave..."
...[concerned] what updates regarding accused's access to information during this...memorandum [concerns what if any classified information] that Pfc. Manning was granted access to [This question references the date 3 February 2011]
...had he been?
...3 February he had [answer is unclear from transcriber's notes.]
...anyone else require security clearance from this period?
All members of the sanity board...additional defense expert required security clearance...
[missed next tab and page number] What is this?
18 February 2011 to me from defense requesting for appointment of neuro psychologist with TS-SCI clearance.
...you said you accounted...?
Page 16 and 17, tab 2?
Yes. 22 April for record from me to trial counsel and defense.
Paralegal from MDW signed, not unusual...
Period of delay 22 April to mid May...what happened after sanity board...?
...[concluded] sound mind...conducting Article 32...There were several requests to delay the Article 32.
Tab 3, one month delay..? [These questions were in sets of three's: Prosecution identifies page and tab; asks 'What was the date?'; 'Who from and to whom is the document?'; 'What is the document?' Transcriber consolidated at times.]
25 April 2011. To me from trial counsel. Request for delay.
[Reasons and] process for considering...?
Classification Authority to validate classified [from Government] and permission from OCA on disclosing documents from defense...
Received request from Major fein. He would come in person or via email. He would make his recommendation, [and I would] make decision.
...seek input from defense?
Page two, tab three.
Email to several members from me to trial counsel and defense. Asked Mr. Coombs to provide feedback on trial counsel request of 25 April 2011.
Did defense object...?
Page three and four, tab three...?
Defense response to 25 April request. 26 April date of the document.
Consulted with trial counsel?
Paragraph one, last sentence what did it say...?
Defense said...indicated would be without information, unable to adequately prepare for Article 32.
Did you consider this request...?
Yes. [Government] requests provided a summary of information as opposed to going through review, offered substitute and summary. [He is saying the he is getting very high level updates from Government. He is not aware of the details of the requests or how many documents are at how many agencies.]
Did you consult with the Government?
Yes. Classification reviews; deposition requests were required to conduct a thorough Article 32.
Page five, tab three. What is this?
Memo for distribution from me...approves Government request for delay of the Article 32. Sent [to] trial counsel and defense counsel.
What did you consider...?
[Reasons for the delay was there was] classified information...a lot of it. So I determined that classification reviews needed to be complete. Trial counsel was providing updates. ...considered defense counsel.
Page six, tab three. What is it?
Memo for...12 May 2011 account for executable delay.
...back...page five paragraph three. What did you do to make sure classification reviews...
...said they needed to provide that information to defense. ...getting updates weekly from trial counsel at office or Fort McNair...SJA [Staff Judge Advocate's] Office.
...during normal business hours?
After business hours...?
Security clearances...who needed them?
Every team member. 20 April 2011 defense...to me...request for a neural psychologist.
Next period of delay, after approval of delay. What happened?
Trial counsel came to me and requested additional delay.
Yes. Request from trial counsel to me 22 May .
Paragraph two. Did you considers updates prosecution provided? [Missed...]
Prosecution called weekly.
What generally did you do?
[Missed...] 24 May email from [?] to me restates 26 April [reasons] on initial delay.
What was your decision for the delay [request]?
Page four, tab four. What is this?
Document where I granted delay 26 May.
What did you consider?
Discussion with trial counsel including...from defense and 26 May memo.
Did you consider the facts of this case?
Later memorialized reason to delay?
Page five, tab four. What is this?
This is the accounting memorandum.
Discussed case once a week [with trial counsel].
What period of time?
12 May to 17 June.
Next period? Resume? [Coffman] left of mid June to mid July 2011 suspense [dates]...
Trial counsel requested additional delay.
Page one, tab five. What is the date?
27 June 2011. To me from [Major] Fein. Request for delay of Article 32.
I considered these. Trial counsel provided updates. Similar to the other delays, send to defense counsel for input.
Page three, tab five.
...asking comments from Coombs on request.
Page four, tab five...?
Email from Mr. Coombs, maintain 26 April 2011 memo [the defense objection that is], defense [objected] saying the [time should be] credited to Government 29[this is either 19 or 29] June 2011. [I] granted the delay to the Government.
Page five, tab five...?
Document granting delay request for Article 32, 5 July 2011.
Same considerations as previous: classifications reviews, disclosure request from defense, security clearances.
Consider updates from prosecution?
Yes. Started getting [specifics?] from OCAs, where they were on classification reviews.
Did you account...?
Yes. 13 July 2011 document accounting for delay. 17 June...date of memo, paragraph three, reason I [decided ?].
Trial counsel submitted additional request.
Page one, tab six...?
Document request from trial counsel to me.
Paragraph two, consider update...?
Weekly phone calls.
Page three, tab [?] ?
Email...25 July 2011, me to defense, if they had an issue with the Article 32 delay.
Page four, tab six...?
Document for me from defense...their opinion or issues with delay.
Act on request?
Yes. Granted delay.
Page five, tab six...?
My response to the request by trial counsel for a delay.
Very similar to previous delay: disclosure request and OCA's...
Consider defense objections?
notify parties on 26 July?
Tab six, page six...?
Accounting memo 10 August 
Basis of the consideration to make the determination.
Sub paragraph, delta...?
Security clearances through out, we had changes in experts that required security clearances.
Page seven, tab six...? Date?
3 August . To SJA through me from defense counsel. Consulted with trial counsel, granted with caveat. They [defense] requested a particular individual, but granted another individual with same skill set. Not that individual.
Page nine, tab six...?
...memo request for a defense expert 10 August 2011.
...anyone else security clearances request...?
Don't remember one month to others. All memorialized.
...page 14, tab six. What is this?
9 August 2011 to me from defense. Request for a computer forensic expert to help defense...they need a TS-SCI clearance. [I] continued to get updates from trial counsel.
Pages 19 to 22, tab six...?
Email between trial counsel and defense counsel. Trial counsel updating information being disclosed from [then] Captain Fein to me and defense counsel.
First email. Fein to me.
Subsequent is a forwarded email? [Missed...?]
[What was the] subsequent email...?
Coombs to Ashden [Coffman calls lead military prosecutor by his first name.] Major Fein to Coombs what they were sen...2 August 2011. Second email trial counsel Major Fein to me 9 August 2011, updating on...
Page 22, tab six...?
Yes. Additional email forward from Fein to me. previous email from trial counsel to defense on update on discovery...
Were you updated on discovery...?
[For the earlier] court martials [you mentioned that] you were Special Convening Authority on were you updated on discovery...?
Additional defense experts. Request to ensure discovery provided; classification review disclosures...
Remember other requests...?
not in particular.
Would anything help you refresh your memory...? Page 23 and 24, tab six data...?
6 August to me from defense. Request for a computer hardware software...
Page 29, tab sic...?
My approval or previous request.
Mid August to mid September ...?
Trial counsel additional delay...
Page one and two of tab seven...?
25 August 2011. Request from trial counsel to delay to me.
...consider these updates.
Page three, tab seven...?
Process. Sent Coombs an email asking if there were any issues...
Page four, tab seven...?
Email from Coombs to me [where he] maintained [that the time should be] credited to the Government. I granted the delay.
Are you familiar with this document?
I signed it. 29 August continued updates, defense response yo request I sent him from orignal delay request.
Who did you notify...?
Investigating Officer, trial counsel, defense counsel.
How did you memorialize?
Familiar with this document?
15 September 2011 Accounting memo [for time period of] 10 August to 15 September.
Basis for delay.
Turn to page seven, tab seven...?
Email document from trial counsel to me offering me situational awareness on email just sent on discovery update. [1 December ?] email...
Mid September to mid October, next period of delay...?
6 September 2011 to me from trial counsel request for a delay of the Article 32.
Consider any updates...?
We talked or was [briefed ?].
Yes. Email from defense to me objecting.
Did you consider defense..?
Yes. I granted the delay.
Page four, tab eight.
...approved previous requests [to delay] Article 32...weekly updates [from trial counsel]...defense objected.
[?] review, defense objected...? [Not clear from transcriber notes.]
...in our accounting memo that any disclosure was provided.
Accounting memo. 13 September to 14 October.
Basis of delay.
During this time trial counsel was providing you updates...?
Tab [?] familiar...?
Major Fein forwarding email sent to defense counsel. [I was] cc'd. We provided to defense. [During his testimony Coffman often used the phrase "my trial counsel" I cannot say with certainty the use of first person plural occurred here.]
Date of those emails...?
One, 13 October and two, 21 October.
Any other defense request at the time...?
...don't know if this period or another...don't recall.
Page eight, tab eight.
Request from defense for security clearances.
Mid October to...?
Additional request for Article 32 delay. follow in request for Article 32. 25 October 2011.
...weekly updates from defense counsel.
Yes. I received weekly updates from trial counsel.
Page four, tab [?]
Email from Coombs 25 October to me, [the defense] position on request.
Consider their objection...?
Page five, tab nine...?
Yes. 27 October...my approval of delay request. I considered previous memorandum [from? Major Fein, unclear from transcriber notes.]
What did you do...?
[It was a] continuing process...
16 November 2011. Document is accounting memo for 14 October to 16 November time period.
This provided to...?
trial counsel and defense counsel.
Page seven and eight, tab nine...?
4 November 2011. Email exchange forwarded to me [between trial counsel and defense counsel] on what we had made available to them to turn over in [disclosure.] [Coffman definitely used the first person plural "we"]. One remaining Official Classification Authority for a classification review [was left]. Time period to restart because thought OCA would be complete in [time for Article 32].
How many classification reviews [were you] waiting on...?
4 november believe one or two left... getting close. By mid November one complete.
Last delay when...?
...got it towards mid [?]...now final OCA [classification review] before the Article 32 assumed would be in about the beginning of the month...
Page one and two, tab ten...
Yes. Request by trial counsel to restart the Article 32.
Paragraph 32, and updates provided to you?
...[trial counsel updates said] getting through classification reviews, down to one outstanding classification review...
What if any update...?
Don't remember. We had continuously been...[missed...]
...including in document updates on evidence seeking to disclose [to defense] [NB the accounting memorandum that Coffman signed and is testifying to was drafted by trial counsel and signed by the Colonel.]
What if any updates on security clearances...?
Defense had received security clearances.
When did Article 32 begin?
...30 days from... [missed...]
Conduct Article 32...
What is required...?
Operational Plan Bravo. OP PLAN BRAVO. Plan to execute as order all...required to pull together and conduct Article 32. One, transportation, security, other affairs, facilities, based on the attention of the case. [We] had picked Fort Meade to conduct.
Who was involved...?
I am the support unit. MDW wrote OP Plan Bravo. They are 14 units. I don't have the resources to conduct from media... I have to go out and ask for help...came from the Headquarters Battalion, Fort Meade Garrison, and MDW.
Why couldn't you conduct...?
Don't have the resources.
To execute [OP PLAN Bravo] just military resources..?
Prosecution request for delay, did defense object?
Defense understood requirements, objected to time period...[wanted a] week earlier.
Page 47, tab 10...?
Yes. 16 November from Coombs to me. Response to my decision to restart the Article 32 [Coombs wanted] 12 December.
Prosecution wanted 16 December, he [Coombs] wanted 12 December?
Defense ever object to OP PLAN BRAVO...?
He [Coombs] understood OP PLAN BRAVO requirements, wanted an earlier start...prior to the holiday period. I approved Government request.
Executable delay memorandum to restart Article 32 for 16 December, accounted for 22 November to 16 December executable delay.
...[there was still] one outstanding classification review...? Why didn't you wait until [that classification review] was done...
...I was confident. The OCA was confident would be done in two weeks.
Why didn't you wait...?
No reason to wait.
No reason to wait. [repeats himself] No reason to wait. Trying to move on. Exactly what I said. Where ever we can gain time...
Consider the rights of the accused...?
Where ever we can gain time...I considered the rights of accused from beginning.
Page 49, tab 10...?
I signed it. Accounting memo...16 November to 15 December...
Remember any other request...?
Anything...request particular item...
Page 50 and 51, tab 10...?
28 November for me from defense request for software to conduct computer forensics...
Page 52, tab 10...?
Date of this...?
6 December to me from Major Fein. Email on when he received the final classification review. OP PLAN BRAVO primarily discussing movement and confinement...
Mid July 2010 to Article 32 in December 2011 there was a significant period of delay?
Yes. We were concerned about how long...a fair Article 32...120 day requirement.
Concern is when you have one of your soldiers in Pretrial confinement. Especially in this case with the volume of information... Classification important to process from Government agencies. ...if din't have complete.
Ever contact Government agencies...?
No. I never personally contacted OCA. Confident my trial counsel is making appropriate contact. [Coffman uses possessive pronoun "my" in his answer.] I have no reason not to believe in trial counsel.
Judge Lind looks up and over at Col. Coffman.
You are a senior officer. Why would you not call Government agencies...?
I am comfortable receiving information from trial counsel.
In your opinion, having an O-6 Colonel expedite...?
...in DC...certainly one aspect you are one of ranks in these agencies...senior government officials and flag officers.
...and you have experience working with agencies?
Contact G-2 [in regards to] security clearances?
Didn't feel...did not have to get involved in...trial counsel never [gave me reason to]
What is end state?
Article 32 then recommendation to general court martial Convening Authority. Can't get without proper evidence then have to go back and get anything else.
[END OF PROSECUTION EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
Please be seated. This Article 39(a) Session is called to order...all parties present since we last called recess...
Over extended lunch Court signed protective order, appellate exhibit...?
Not yet. Being redacted...once copied...
[DEFENSE EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
706 board...3 August 2010?
Lt. Col. Almanza?
11 August 2010 defense requested delay?
Approved on 12 August...?
Period 11 August until 706 board completed executable delay?
...approved defense delay?
...because 11 August first time you received request from defense?
You ordered preliminary classification reviews...?
...close to 22 September.
Request for preliminary classification review in your mind reason to delay 706 board?
Might discuss classified information...?
Pfc. Manning might discuss at TS-SCI level...?
Aware of some information might be leaked...?
...because defense told you [Pfc. Manning] might discuss TS-SCI information?
You said defense objected to preliminary classification review?
We didn't object to review but aspect of disclosing what he would divulge to defense counsel?
Preliminary classification review completed 13 December 2010?
Look at tab one, page 44?
Document is dated 13 December 2010.
Was not till 3 [?] 2011 that the 706 [board] resumed work?
On 13 December, ...didn't know if 706 [board members had] been identified?
Ask trial as of 13 December 2010 not identified?
Know how many members on board...?
Remember when trial counsel told you name...?
One had, two had not.
Ask why 706 didn't [find] two members with TSC-SCI security clearances?
All RCM granted TS-SCI read onto SCI...?
Trial counsel let me know they were ready...[missed] 706 board.
Ask trial counsel why 13 December to 13 January to get all members [706 board] with TS-SCI clearances?
[You testified] you wanted to save time where ever you could save time... [Missed...]
[Answered in the negative to the second question.]
Trial counsel requested clearances....prior to 13 December 2010?
We didn't know was required. [Coffman answered in second person plural.]
[You testified] "Where ever we could save time..."
[Wouldn't it] ..behoove to get members with TS-SCI if possible, you indicated it would take a year [to get clearances]?
Would be a good idea to start process...?
...if process has been started 13 December 2010?
Had you identified members with clearances you could have started the board on that day?
Were you concerned  board as of 13 December 2010 not ready to resume?
[All that was needed to complete was] on meeting in a SCIF?
Yes. Not sure how many in T-SCIF, did not go into details with trial counsel.
Did not know how many meetings in a T-SCIF?
Since [previous meetings with 706 board] was unclassified nothing prevented [such meetings]?
...if what was discussed was unclassified?
Ask trial counsel why...13 December?
Trial counsel ever suggest it?
Do you know when did trial counsel started looking for SCIF?
According to trial counsel chronology, page 50, appellate exhibit 330, [20 January to locate] contacted INSCOM to [access?] SCIF. Did they inform you?
No. We had discussions but did not get into details. Trial counsel didn't tell me.
Trial counsel scheduled reconnoissance February 2011 [missed]?
Knew they were trying to get a facility.
As late as 25 February 2011 reconnoissance for your oder on [?] December?
You believe they should have executed that on date you asked to resume?
[to Court] M'am first reference page 50 of appellate exhibit 330. Second on page 58. I am now referencing page 60.
[to Col. Coffman] 1 March...trial counsel chronology [is a] tour of INSCOM SCIF for 706 board. Did you know about it?
Trial counsel tell you why they needed to do a tour?
Trial counsel gone through process related to cap [capacity?] and access. Most of these...where and when they needed to be...
...tour of 706 board members to see security facility?
Reconnaissance to make sure facility...
There is no fact 706 board toured facility. [Page 60, appellate exhibit 330] 1 March such tour for 706 refers to prosecution touring for the board.
Did trial counsel tell you of a tour of INSCOM facility?
Yes. They needed to know if the facility met their requirements.
Wanted to schedule to give him privacy [so] on weekends or after hours?
Discuss with trial counsel?
Guidance I gave them on weekends or [after duty hours] on weekends...less individuals around.
Inform INSCOM for Saturday only?
Obviously, what with your concern after duty hours and 'de-conflicting' facility discussed earlier [in his testimony]...?
Pfc. Manning movement into facility, privacy aspect...getting a lot of attention in media. Have privacy from vehicle from car to SCIF. Media find out, other people find out.
If you scheduled on a Saturday, media and people could find out?
4 March 2011...board did not submit on 4 March 2011 suspense date?
On 14 March Dr. Sweda [from the] 706 board sought an extension?
Yes [via] email.
Did you ask him why prior to 4 [or 14? may be a mistake in my notes] March...?
Had a discussion...not complete...through phone call. ...went through process.
Did you ask Dr. Sweda why he had not submitted?
You are not, as a commander, not use to not being given a heads up...give you advanced notice [normally if something is not ready as ordered or scheduled]...
Dr. Sweda memo. Tab two, page seven relates need [57?] more days because 'evaluators are coordinating simple date and time...'
They needed to meet once in a SCIF?
Dr. Sweda having problems...did you ask why?
I did not ask Dr. Sweda.
Ask why board could not coordinate simple dates and times?
We had discussion ...706 board...
...because they were limited to Saturday?
Ever ask why not meet on another day...?
Did not have that [missed].
Ever know about Dr. Sweda's request to meet on day other than Saturday?
18 March 2011, page nine...?
[Looks at document] Yes. 18 March...
Why four day delay in dealing with request...?
Original request until 29 [missed].
You conveyed to board needed to complete by 16 April?
All they needed was to meet in a SCIF?
You had SCIFs in your command and control?
We did at Fort McNair used by MDW and Joint force as opposed to INSCOM...was a wash.
You said before that you had not tried another SCOF?
We did discuss Fort McNair SCIF.
15 April 2011, Dr. Sweda number two request, tab two, page eight...
[looking] page eight?
...delay because board limited...go to paragraph two. Ever ask why board was having difficulty?
Did not talk to Sweda.
Trial counsel talk to Dr. Sweda?
706 duty was primary duty [for 706 board members]?
You approved Dr. Sweda's 15 April 2011 request, tab two, page 10?
Yes for 22 April 2011.
On 22 April 706 board submitted final report...talk about monthly executable delay. Tab one, page 45?
12 October 2010...monthly executable delay?
[You had] conversation [with trial counsel]...monthly with executable delay memo. Did you write [the memo]?
Trial counsel wrote [the memo]?
12 October 2010 [memo said] '12 July to date is executable under RCM 707'?
On 11 August delay request that is when you delayed the Article 32?
11 August 2010 forward...?
Don't know exact dates.
From initial approval 11 August 2010 forward...?
If you did not receive 11 August 2010...Article 32 by 13 August 2010?
...for this 12 August 2010 why not started until July 2012...?
...already under delay request.
You are [saying] you did not exclude delay because [a delay] 'already in place'?
When we got case, already in place by defense.
Sir, earlier, you ordered Article 32 within ten days...
But now excludable delay on July...
12 August 2010 you did not take it back to 12 July correct?
Article 32 needed to be done in ten days?
When you ordered it..case was new to you...no defense counsel had asked you until 11 August?
Yes, until 11 August.
12 October 20[1?]...[did you] identify [the] following [as reasons for executable delays] [Missed]
...basis for executable delay...?
Original Classification Authorities mean [classification reviews for] one, charged documents and two, information released to defense.
Yes. Two primary considerations.
As of 12 October 2010 [your ordered executable delays] in order to complete classification reviews.
...review of charged documents or [did the Government] select all documents..?
You did not know the OCAs by name or what they were being asked to review?
...talk about other executable delay memos. [?] to 15 February...4 September executable delay, pages 47 to 50. Take a moment to glance at it. These four memorandum 14 January 2011, 15 February 2011 exclude 105 days...
If those numbers are correct...sounds about right.
Memo is the same [as previous month]?
Very close to the same...
First and last one are different...
...other than that, they are the same?
...are drafted by trial counsel?
No substantive change?
No substantive changes.
When one memo was presented to you, you would speak to trial counsel for 10 to 15 minutes?
After that you would sign memo?
During this, did you know what the OCAs were doing?
[Talks about discussions with trial counsel. He stressed through out testimony it was high level, no details.]
Did you know each OCA?
Ever ask,how much longer?
Trial counsel never briefed you.
Never asked...never briefed how many documents OCAs were reviewing?
You never asked?
Trial counsel sais, 'OCA's continue to press on...'?
Even prior to March, some came back quicker than others. I had no reason to believe trial counsel could not be trusted.
As far as me talking to OCAs, I did not have a tracking sheet by OCA by document etc.
13 February 2011, defense made first demand for Speedy Trial.
I remember two occasions.
13 January 2011 sound right?
Spoke to trial counsel...?
You understood that after you took out executable delays, trial needed to happen in 120 days?
Understood [you had an accused in pretrial confinement]?
Trial counsel explained what RCM 707, ...Article 10...taked to you about due diligence?
Yes. Not familiar in particular with Article 10.
Wouldn't expect you to be. If you would take a look at tab two, page 16...go to page 11. Take a look and page 16 too. These are two other executable delays. 18 March 2011 and 22 April 2011. 18 March 2011...[updates]?
'OCA consent to disclose classified information.'
What does that mean?
OCA consented that they have to disclose...
During 15 February to 22 April did you know what the OCA was doing...?
Work on classification reviews. I did not contact the OCA. ...based on information from trial counsel. They were telling me, they were continuing to press on...
Did they give you any specifics?
Don't recall. I don't remember specifics...we were turning that over...
...you didn't receive anything? Agencies...again asking based upon trial counsel doing their jobs and OCAs doing their job?
Tab three, page one. Government submits the first of many delays?
'US receives consent for classified evidence [disclosure] to defense.'
...delay was in order to obtain classification reviews, charged classified information to defense...?
Government provided you part of memorandum with redacted copies...14 March...OCA classification review request 18 March..?
[Coombs hands Col. Coffman a binder marked appellate exhibit 376(b).] ..marked appellate exhibit 376(b). Hold onto that...glance at it, enough to refresh...I will ask remainder...
OCA 14 March 2011...charge document disclosure consent...?
Did you review documents that were enclosures?
...for this recall [does?] looking at these documents [help you recall?]?
you never looked at because...?
14 March...Department of State, G-2, OGA no. 1,...they consented to disclosed classified information to defense..?
This is what is in redactions.
Paragraph...scope 'classified information, classified evidence etc. originating from blank.' Ever ask why they waited so long to disclose information to defense...29 March 2011?
I know enclosure...Department of State.
Do you know...Army G-2...30 March 2011?
...enclosure one email 03287?
Also on 29 March...Government motion page 11...?
Defense Intelligence Agency...March 2011?
No. Information I got, 'We are getting information back...' My concern was not each page, each agency, getting OCA complete.
OCA reviews. Look at that, appellate exhibit 376(b), thumb through memos. Number one, 18 March 2011, see where trial counsel requested OCA to finalize charged documents...?
18 March, first paragraph. It is in quotes.
Finalized is stressed...?
In this request from the Government repeated since 17 June 2010 with OCAs and evidence, did they make that request to you?
Yes. Don't remember exact language.
As far as date, does 17 June date sound right...?
I wouldn't tell you a specific date...
Look back at tab three, page one, goto background. See second full sentence...?
...'Since 17 June 2010...'
They reported that they had been working on this since 17 June 2010...?
...to April 25 2011 do you realize that covers 313 days?
I will trust your math.
...after that [memo] did you ask [trial counsel] what they meant by 'finalize'?
No. I didn't...talk to OCAs.
Did any OCAs provide estimated date of completion?
Did trial counsel provide you with any information of how OCA...?
I did not know if one OCA was working harder than another. They are not giving me [information] that 'this OCA is at 50%...'
If they were not providing you detail, you had no ability to drill down...?
You didn't know if they were working on it or...?
Defense opposed 25 April...look at tab three, page three...?
...your 26 April opposing...
...now in this delay actually...in this delay request we are opposing delay and [minimum?] need for further delay. Did you consider the defense response?
Talk to trial counsel about defense request...? [This questions concern the actual need for classification reviews to conduct the Article 32 as opposed to using summaries and substitutions.]
Yes. ...summaries and substitutions I talked to trial counsel about that defense request. ...group of docs was classified.
Tab three, page five. In that state Article 32 delay until earlier OCA and OCA classification reviews...based upon your approval. One was a [core?] requirement...
[Missed...] ...25 May 2011?
If you have 12 May...OCA....Article 32 would have started...?
Lets look at tab three,page six. You issued an executable delay 22 April 2011 to 12 May...was [an] executable [delay] under RCM 707(c)...?
That is what I see.
...[the] reasons [given] were OCA reviews; OCA disclosures; December...3 September ...security clearances; access for Pfc. Manning...? Correct?
Trial counsel typed this?
You had the opportunity to make changes...?
I could if I wanted to.
Talk to trial counsel before signing...?
Regarding 3 September 2010...you testified this basis would not hold up the Article 32, based on your...?
Well if you have defense counsel...
But defense counsel would not make request..?
Absent defense request would [these reasons] hold up Article 32?
22 May 2011 trial counsel submits second delay request. Trial counsel says, 'continuing to work with OCAs correct'?
Ask trial counsel what they mean by 'continuing to work...'?
...are OCA's making progress...
They did explain what they meant by 'continuing...'?
Trial counsel delay [regarding] Article 32, the OCA classification reviews and protected unclassified information...?
Did the Government give you any indication what... [time frame OCA reviews would be complete]?
Did not have a set time.
No particular time?
No particular time.
Did you ask if anything given to execute process?
What was factual basis...?
...updates by trial counsel.
Did trial counsel ever ask you for assistance?
You told me you didn't lose sleep that the OCAs were not completed.
No, not at all. [No means in this answer, that Coffman did not lose sleep.]
How many more months would you wait...?
Didn't have a set time.
Ask trial counsel... Everyone has someone above them...and avail yourself of having the power of O-6 in DC capital region. You know people above. You speak to the MDW General Convening Authority [Major Gen. Michael S. Linnington Commander of Joint Task Force - National Capital Region the General Court Martial Convening Authority]?
More than I like to.
Ever consider three star general in your chain of command to get things moving?
I don't think with OCAs...these aren't staffers that are doing these. They are senior executives and general officers. I did not feel I had to...required to start walking up the chain of command.
You are basically dealing with the Government?
We are talking to ourselves?
Don't know what you mean actually.
We are dealing with the USG who was prosecuting my client. ...conversation among myself?
Government people. [You]...never maybe [thought about] getting command influence on it or General Court Martial Convening Authority emphasis on it?
...approval of second delay for Article 32 'delay under OCA requirement...25 June 2011' and defense sent an email and defense requested time should be credited to Government. Ever consider not approving?
I considered Government and your requests.
Ever consider request...[deciding] going to delay your request...to Government, but going to credit you [the time]?
If you found out all the reviews were completed and information disclosed would you have started Article 32?
If defense said substitutions [would have been fine for Article 32 in lieu of full on classification reviews for allegedly leaked documents or evidence disclosed to defense]...?
...never presented itself. [Coffman is saying the option was never presented to him.]
If that had been the case would that have [been reason] held up the Article 32?
Do you need a break?
[LEAD MILITARY PROSECUTOR MAJOR FEIN ASKS FOR A BREAK. COURT GRANTS A COMFORT BREAK]
Please be seated. This Article 39(a) Session is called to order...
[DEFENSE CONTINUES CROSS EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
Take a look at tab four, page five. This is 1[7?] June executable delay. Same you gave in May?
Would you agree they look the same except for the date?
Nowhere is authorization to disclose in explaining [reason for delay]?
If only thing was authorization to disclose protected unclassified...reason to uphold Article 32?
No. I never thought about...never presented as an option.
If you look at three delay requests tab five, page one 27 June 2011 request update 25 June 2011...they talk about information [they have?] now and updating...[missed]? [In this question defense was asking Col. Coffman why trial counsel had missed a suspense date from the previous filing.]
in written format? I talked to them [trial counsel] once a week. [Col. Coffman essentially says that he was given a verbal update, that is why he received subsequent request for a delay from the Government past the suspense dat.]
As far as written yes?
Government requested another delay?
Did you ask why it was not submitted in writing before or after 27 June?
I was comfortable with verbal updates.
Could have happened after 27 June since not in writing?
Ever considered writing to OCAs...?
...OCA classification reviews; Army CID and Other Government Agency case file. Did you ask ... why it had not sought...why hadn't...protected unclassified information... [This question as noted by transcriber is not clear]
Any understanding as to how long it would take?
Did trial counsel give you any idea what steps they needed [to complete classification reviews]?
What I am tracking is general condition of where we are, [and not] tracked by government [agency].
This is for unclassified protected information...?
Ask why they [trial counsel] needed to obtain...NSA and OGA review of the Army CID case file?
What was in the Army CID case file related directly to NSA and OGA elements, so NSA and OGA had to review to authorize disclosure.
Did they tell you why trial counsel felt the delay of the Article 32 was needed in order to make this happen?
Go to tab five, page five. 5 July 2011 you approved [Government request for a delay of the Article 32]?
Over defense [objection]?
Page six, 13 July 2011 executable delay the basis for exclusion was the same as May and June executable delays?
Appears to be true.
Only thing that has changed is the date?
No where is NSA or OGA mentioned?
Tab six, page one. 2[?] July 2011. Basis same as June request. Again prosecution [reasons] until earlier OCA classification reviews and final review of Army CID case file by NSA and OGA?
Tab six, page four. Defense objection?
In our objection we point out that [the Government] had over a year yo complete classification review process, correct?
...been a year nothing done, [trial counsel] did not provide any specifics as to what they had done?
Also point out in memo [the directive] to formalize what they have done and finalize response?
that defense renews speedy trial?
Did you understand that it had been 360 days?
Not tracking exact number of days.
Dd you ever ask if you even needed classification reviews?
Did trial counsel explain to you [possibility] of going forward without classification reviews?
We had speedy trial discussions frequently, can't tell you when prior to that.
Did trial counsel ever bring up doing the Article 32 without classification reviews?
When trial counsel said that [missed]?
I recall saying to confirm on... [missed].
Recall any discussion... [missed]?
Know why they needed classification reviews?
So prosecution and defense have classification reviews to conduct a fair and thorough Article 32.
At this point you have no idea how much longer?
What reference point [in terms of time] for OCAs was reasonable?
Every month conditions changed. Some where the same. We were making progress. I remember [considering] if I changed command in 2012 [July 2012], can we get this done prior to change of command? ...own thing was I ... What if I changed command before the Article 32 was complete? I was comfortable we were making progress.
What reference point from OCA [classification reviews] to determine if time they were taking was reasonable?
Don't have one.
...if [in] Summer of 2012 [was your] change in command...?
If Article 32, if it does go...
Were you concerned if the OCA classification reviews would not be done by change of command?
No. I knew that we would eventually get them.
You don't always trust everyone around you, but you trusted trial counsel?
Even if you trusted was there anything preventing you from reaching out to OCAs?
Did you know if trial counsel had reached out to OCAs on...? ...anyone in trial counsel memos to various OCAs 'under Article 10...reasonable due diligence...only remedy dismissal of charges...all existing and future delay would hinder your prosecution?
Don't remember seeing this...it was July 2011.
Meaning it was so long ago?
Did you ask trial counsel about speedy trial?
We had discussions frequently.
Were you concerned about violating his speedy trial rights?
I wasn't concerned about violating [his speedy trial rights], but getting him a speedy trial and yes, I was concerned.
Do you see 10 August 2011 to 'finalize' ...they would tell OCAs to complete classification reviews?
Did you ever give trial counsel a suspense date to go forward?
26 July 2011, fourth request in that approval... delayed ...[reasons cited] OCA [classification reviews] disclosure requests and authorization to grant...?
This memo...despite speedy trial, doesn't reference that. Know why?
Page six, 10 August 2011 executable delay same as May, June, and July...only basis you gave.
No where is final review by OGA and NSA?
At this time, did you have any idea how much longer [the Article 32] needed to be delayed?
Greater specificity...did you have anything outstanding?
Tab seven, page one. 25 August 2011 memorandum. Fifth request. Government requests ...until nearly [all] of [the] OCA [classification] reviews request; OCA reviews final of derivative [classification]...; [Army] CID [case file reviewed] by NSA, relevant district Court judge... At the time did they explain what final derivative classification meant?
So based on [trial counsel] not explaining, you wouldn't know how not to get derivative classification?
District Court judges?
Don't remember details of discussion.
...because it was a long time ago?
Don't recall. So, you don't know relevant district Court judges?
Did prosecution explain why OGA had completed but not NSA?
Were you concerned another month had gone by but not another...?
Always concerned about speedy trial [with an accused in] pretrial [confinement], but classification reviews [were necessary] for a fair and thorough Article 32...evidence. Not concerned.
Obviously 25 August suspense of 10 August...ask why OCAs failed to meet suspense dates?
We had weekly class, wasn't going back [as in backwards]...as long as I was getting information that we were making progress.
With regards to suspense date, did you asked why was missed?
Ever reach out to OCA?
What specificity of information where you relying on?
Trial counsel submitted request. If you were asking if I had specific... '10 documents in 14 days'... I never got that level of detail.
To make sure I understand. You did not have specific information?
[As long as] 'OCA suppose to be doing what OCA is doing'?
Fifth delay request to delay Article 32 until earlier OCA disclosure reviews; [Army] CID [case file reviewed] by NSA...?
That is what it says.
You did not type the document, presented by trial counsel?
Know why that was listed?
Back brief...determine of information back from you...make a decision. Don't recall specifics of every detail.
Were you getting specific information?
I never asked trial counsel, 'How many files...dates?' Never asked for that information.
Why not? Did there come a time that you wanted to? That is what i am trying to understand. What information are you getting?
I did not get to that level of detail.
Didn't think that would be required for executable delay?
I knew we had classification reviews we needed to do.
Page six, tab [?]...15 September ...basis is same as May, June, July, and August?
On 15 September 2011...at this point you provided [147?] days of delays. Any idea how much longer?
No. Did not have a date written on the wall.
Tab seven, page five. In your 29 August [memorandum?] you state trial counsel provide you no later than 23 September...?
See tab eight, page one. What date [do you see]? 26 September . Know why [the Government] missed your update [suspense date]?
Memorialized from update. Don't know specific date [trial counsel] called [on the telephone].
...earlier completion of OCA request... Improperly marked documents from NSA... Why did you sign protective orders from defense? [This question is not clear to the transcriber from the transcribers notes.]
Recall any discussion why disks would be needed?
...at any point what 'improperly marked portions from the NSA' meant?
[Referring to] appellate exhibit 376(b)...7 September see that...28 July again...concern for speedy trial?
Did trial counsel tell you they resent memo?
Don't recall September 7 memo specifically.
in that memo...21 September 2011 the OCA failed to meet that?
Yes. We don't typically task another agency.
Why? ...what the OCA failed to meet is months..., missed 2 September suspense date?
...will you [explain what you mean] by the term 'require'. Have any discussions about going on [to the Article 32] without the classification reviews?
We had that each time.
What do you recall?
I don't recall specifics.
...you indicated you had discussions [with] trial counsel every time [you received a request] about classification reviews and the Article 32?
Dont recall specifics. I did not track that recommendation [that they proceed with the Article 32 without classification reviews]. Now based on trial counsel...every month [there were] dynamic changes...different things happened...getting more information...from OCAs. I am not asking him, '10 documents, five documents?' I have more than one thing on my plate. If the trial counsel is doing a good job...
So, it is him just saying, 'More information, more information from OCA' ...what you are saying from your discussions with trial counsel?
At some point they got into more detail...other evidence...
...but with OCA you are not getting those [facts?] ?
Page four, tab eight. See 28 September 2011 approval for Government's executable delay request, over defense objections?
This 14 October 2011 executable delay memo basis was [same] as May, June, July,...?
I trust you if you are telling me that is the case. I signed them.
No where is signed...None of those are basis for executable delay...178 days delay?
If [you found out] derivative classification reviews were holding up the Article 32, would you have] given guidance to drive on with the Article 32?
I made the decision I did make... primary concerns was classification reviews and [missed]
If you look at 25 October 2011 request to delay...seventh request... In this request, Article 32...final determination...protected order... Can you say why you needed a delay for a signed protective order?
Don't recall specifics. Still felt...OCA reviews and disclosure [were necessary for a fair and thorough Article 32].
You never considered putting pressure, by clocking [time to Government]?
...find out the facts of the [OCA] classification reviews?
Page five, tab [?] this is 27 October approval... In that approval [listed as basis] OCA reviews... 28 November 2011... This memorandum is identical to previous... Other than date, it is cut and paste?
Yes. Same information on it.
14 October 2011 basis was same as May, June, July, August, September, ...October memo is the same?
On this day 16 November  trial counsel orders Article 32 to resume. Trial counsel requests that you order Article 32 for 16 December 2011...for OP PLAN BRAVO...30 days to set up to support the Article 32?
You testified [to that] on direct?
[You testified] ...resume its work, you knew at the beginning of November, you knew they would have [completed the last classification review(s) in time for the Article 32]?
You testified, '[wherever we could gain time],... we would gain time' granted 2 November...and OP PLAN BRAVO...we have a week or two left?
More than potential, nothing was preventing you?
OP PLAN BRAVO didn't go into effect until 16 November?
Thinking outside the box, could have started on 16 November [2012? Not sure if this question is a hypothetical trying to get Coffman to distinguish parameters and references for his decisions. So if 2012 was correctly notated by transcriber, Coombs appears to be proposing based on transcriber notes why not a year later in 2012] ?
Look at tab 10, page 49. 3 January 2012 memo basically excluded 15 December and that was real basis, [namely] to put OP PLAN BRAVO into [?]?
Yes. ...had I reviewed...so I think we can move on...we are going to... [Missed...] I made determination to do OP PLAN BRAVO when I restarted [for the] Article 32. They had 30 days. I don't these guys and facilities.
We could have put planned ...[missed]?
We could have.
Tab one, page eight. Confusion on 706 delay to complete OCA... If you look at paragraph one, defense delay for 706 board..., we are not asking for. I wasn't asking for the 706 board to be delayed.
Yes. You were asking for information about OCA classification reviews.
Tab three, page three. We objected to delay, paragraph one, we were not asking for OCA classification reviews, we were asking for information.
You were asking to be properly provided information.
Not the classification reviews?
Not the classification reviews.
Tab nine, page two. Email to [Major] Fein to you. 'We received final 329,000 pages...' Do you know what the forensic data consisted of?
No the date of the authorization to turn over?
No. Assume close to...
But you don't know when?
[DEFENSE ENDS CROSS EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
4:00 pm EST ALL RISE
[PROSECUTION RE-EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
[Government has a] few questions. On direct you spoke about process...?
If the delay was requested by trial counsel or defense counsel, tried to confer with both and go through process of what was in request going forward...hand carried copy of delay...Captain or Major [was promoted] Fein would show up or email to me...called Ashden or our secretaries would link us up [Coffman called the lead military prosecutor by his first name during this answer]...Then we would sit down with Government for each request...depends on request...classification reviews, disclosure requests...go through document...reason for calling...forward to Coombs...Coombs would respond.
Trial counsel would brief you?
Tab eight, page one. 26 September 2010 when you got request...go each update?
In person or over the phone.
...members would discuss update...would include update from OCAs?
When you say you didn't have facts, you mean you don't remember specific details...?
...depending on OCA and where we were at....[meaning] each OCA or document.
If you could just go to tab eight, page...14 October 2011 memo...paragraph there you outline basis, sub-paragraph (e)...did you consider Government request for delay in granting request?
Consider updates in granting request?
What do you mean OP PLAN BRAVO...?
...could have ben if we elected to...coordinating discussion...in order to get it done..most of the soldiers [not under his command. This answer was not noted in a clear enough way to be certain].
To say the Article 32 could have happened in early 2011...?
...could have happened in 2010, though transportation plans, confinement facility, lots of things factored in...we could have executed it anytime.
[The decision] when to start the Article 32...classification review was important?
Government has no additional questions.
[PROSECUTION ENDS RE-EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
Defense has no additional questions.
[COURT EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
Tab three, defense objection...[why did you not or did you ever consider] ordering Government to provide substitutes?
i don't know, but I opted not to.
I know its a hypothetical but lets just assume...[Article 32] did not begin until your change of command...?
...as we moved through process...getting Article 32 started...I did not have a speedy trial date on the wall. There is still information we don't have that could have impact.
Original charge sheet...5 July 2010...were they preferred before of after you had jurisdiction? [to prosecution] Counsel, can you give me original charge sheet and referred charges on 1 March, 2010 [she made a mistake, she meant 2011]?
[RECESS CALLED SO THAT GOVERNMENT CAN PRINT ORIGINAL 5 JULY 2010 and 1 MARCH 2011 CHARGE SHEETS]
...appellate exhibit 380 [consisting of] new redacted and original redacted and un-redacted charge sheets...
Do you remember when you were stationed [when he was instated as commander of US Army Garrison, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, and gained jurisdiction as Special Convening Authority]...?
3 August 2010
...original charges were before you had jurisdiction...?
...any discussions...original charges 'Baghdad' talks about 50 classified...classified Department of Defense PPT, classified video, classified...Reykjavik 13, more than 50 Department of State cables...at some point new charges... On 1 March 2011 had more broad scope of charge documents, CIDNE, etc... When you got case until new charges...when did Government find out about the new information [reflected in the new charges]?
You have a certain amount of information... Government became aware of more information out there... I guess when doing the delay request...or new information?
Yes. We had each of the charges... As far as what they were classified or not...had general understanding...wasn't a discussion with numbers...time would take.
When you have early delays for the 706 board...was also classification reviews...did the US Government come and talk to you...'Oh no, we just found out about...'?
...in weekly update...if we find more info...
Did trial counsel say, 'We got new information'?
Memos we went through today.
Did they talk to you at some point about charges?
I got the additional charge sheet. [Col. sounds like 'micha']
When was CID investigation complete?
No sure when.
[COURT ENDS EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
Court's last question, are you aware if Army CID still investigating crime...?
Do not know had been.
Is WikiLeaks still releasing classified information?
Don't know. I think CID is [because] still leaking classified information.
Are all of the disclosures still in public [domain]...Army CID kept investigating, how would you know...?
Trial counsel told me.
Court asks a question. Unclear from transcribers notes.
[DEFENSE CROSS EXAMINATION OF COL. CARL COFFMAN]
Original charges 5 July 2010?
...1 March 2011?
You took case on 3 August 2010?
Between time frame..and 1 March 2011, do you know when USG was aware of the information Pfc. Manning might have had?
So 1 March 2011, not because of new information, could have gotten before referred date?
[Defense then addresses the Court] ...authority to ask the Court [to brief on Military Rules for Evidence] MRE 505(d) [Under M.R.E. 505(d), the convening authority is in control of the discovery process before referral.]
...we ask for this to be briefed. [Since Col. Coffman is on the witness stand.]
[to defense] You are asking for his knowledge...?
[COL. CARL COFFMAN IS EXCUSED]
Court question does Convening Authority have the authority to authorize substitutes in counsel wants to brief the Court... [Court would be happy to accept briefs.]
Yes, your Honor.
Speedy trial issue [missed].
No, your Honor.
MRE 505 protective order signed. number of documents are involved...vast sum...had Government print them for me...defense if you will have forensic [experts look at the evidence as under the parameters set up by the Court order granting the Government's motion for a protective order]...with respect to relevance...same basis for 505(g)(2) request.
You emailed me something, not filed.
I will consider the same factors in previous MRE 505 [ex parte ] reviews.[as ruled by the Court when they granted defense motion for a series of questions the Court will consider when reviewing Government MRE 505 classified information limited disclosure reviews.]
Look at protective order and take a look at relevance...and address on record.
...45 minute recess for chronology and OCA participations...
At some point we have to look at case calendar.
Plea and maximum, conditional plea for next session, your Honor.
As far as I understand...Government has to go through Army regulation procedures, anything else for calendar.
[Fein mentions appellate exhibit 368, but not clear from my notes what that is.] Court protective order is appellate exhibit 381. Un-redacted [motion concerning the protective order] is 382. Appellate exhibit 383 is the speedy trial chronology.
Is that different than the defense speedy trial chronology?
Updated defense interrogatory. Appellate exhibit 385 is updated Court calendar.
...next session dates are the same 27 November 2012 [she mistakenly says 27 May then corrects herself] at 10:00am. Do we need to meet in an [RCM] 802 [conference]? Accurate?
Need to meet?
...because chronology filed with Court additional response about different response...
When will I have it?
Next week Thursday.
A number of emails defense to prosecution. The majority have not been seen or presented before. ...will be marked.
As I said, I have been conducting an MRE 505 review...motion...almost finished reviewing...need another ex parte session for about a half an hour after Court.
Lind calls recess but defense interrupts and adds more Court related business to the record.
OCAs...five OCA's answer to interrogatory.
So, by interrogatory...[defense then will call] no additional witnesses?
That is correct.
[END OF DAY]
This work by Alexa O'Brien is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Based on a work at alexaobrien.com.Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at firstname.lastname@example.org.