Hasan has hearing today in Fort Hood shooting case

Nearly a year after the worst noncombat mass shooting on an American military base rocked Fort Hood and the nation, Maj. Nidal Hasan will enter a military courtroom today to begin what is expected to be a legal saga that will be watched around the world.

Hasan, an Army psychiatrist from Virginia, faces 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November shootings at Fort Hood's Soldier Readiness Processing Center. What begins today is the first part of the military's legal process: an Article 32 pretrial hearing, where prosecutors will try to persuade military officials to send Hasan to a court-martial.

Military experts agree that Hasan's trial is the most high-profile death penalty case in a generation and perhaps in modern military history.

"I don't think, in my memory, that I can think of a case that's had this much public profile," said Geoffrey Corn, a professor at the South Texas College of Law and a former military lawyer.

"This will be the most closely watched court-martial, I think, since the case of Lt. (William) Calley in the Vietnam War," said Eugene R. Fidell , who teaches military justice at Yale University and is the president of the National Institute of Military Justice . Calley was found guilty of ordering the My Lai massacre, which left hundreds of South Vietnamese civilians dead, in a case that polarized American public opinion over that war. Calley received a life sentence, which was later reduced to a few years of house arrest.

Though the Article 32 hearing will feature plenty of testimony from witnesses, victims and first responders, the legal drama could be less compelling. Most observers, and even Hasan's civilian attorney, John Galligan, expect the hearing to result in a court-martial; the more contested facet could be whether the hearing results in what is known as a capital referral — which would open the door to a possible death penalty for Hasan.

Normally, an Article 32 hearing is a quick affair, lasting a few days at most. By contrast, Hasan's Article 32 hearing is expected to last several weeks and feature dozens of witnesses, including all 32 injured victims.

Experts say prosecutors only have to put on enough evidence to convince a military judge that a court-martial is warranted on the 45 criminal charges he faces, so they will probably focus on the events of Nov. 5 and not on questions of motive or Hasan's history — including his statements and performance at Walter Reed Army Medical Center or his ties to a radical Muslim cleric accused of having links with al Qaeda.

"I can't see the government going out of its way to put on a lot of evidence on motive at this stage, although certainly at trial they will," said Robert Holland , a retired Army trial judge. "Why should the government put on a lot of extra stuff just so the defense can pin them down on details?"

Similarly, defense attorneys rarely put on much evidence during an Article 32 hearing unless they believe they have compelling evidence — such as an alibi — that could lead to a dismissal, experts say.

"Tactically, the only time (the defense) would present evidence is if it thought what it had was so compelling it would cause the commanding general to dismiss," said Guy Womack , a retired Marine officer and Houston criminal and military law attorney. Presenting evidence "just gives the government advance notice of what their case is."

But this is no ordinary case; officials have scheduled a full week for Hasan's attorneys to present witnesses. Galligan has indicated in media interviews that the events leading up to the shootings are vital to understanding what happened. One possible defense could be the counseling sessions Hasan provided to soldiers before the shootings and their impact on Hasan's mental state.

"Multiple individuals seeking counseling (from Hasan) disclosed what were perceived as war crimes in the weeks prior," Galligan said in an interview last month.

Fidell said Hasan's defense strategy should focus on persuading the investigating officer, Col. James Pohl, to recommend against a capital referral.

Hasan's mental state will also be scrutinized. At some point, a sanity board of military health professionals will decide whether Hasan is mentally competent to stand trial if the case moves on to a court-martial.

The military officer overseeing the hearing ordered it to take place last week — rather than after the Article 32 hearing — but on Thursday, Galligan blocked the hearing from taking place, arguing that military officials did not give Hasan enough notice and questioning the makeup of the board. It's unclear when the sanity review will happen.