Fort Hood shooting trial of Maj. Hasan cost feds nearly $5M
FORT WORTH — The federal government spent nearly $5 million to court-martial and convict an Army psychiatrist in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting rampage, according to records reviewed by a North Texas television station.
The biggest pre-trial expense in Maj. Nidal Hasan's trial was more than $1 million for transportation for witnesses, jurors and attorneys, according to Army records obtained by KXAS-TV of Fort Worth and Dallas. About $900,000 was spent on their accommodations.
Hasan was convicted in August of killing 13 people on Nov. 5, 2009. More than 30 people were wounded.
The records show that in the months before his trial, Army helicopters ferried Hasan 40 miles from the Bell County Jail to Fort Hood at a cost of more than $194,000 so he could work on his defense in his private office — one of the trailers the Army set up for the trial at a cost of more than $200,000.
Army officials have said the helicopter rides were needed to protect Hasan and his team.
Hasan was not allowed to plead guilty to the charges under a military law regarding cases that could bring the death penalty. He served as his own defense attorney, called no witnesses and asked few questions.
More than $1 million was spent on transportation for witnesses, jurors and lawyers, with another $1 million put toward expert witness fees and $90,000 on lodging for them all, the records show.
Hasan remained on the Army payroll until 10 days after his conviction, collecting nearly $300,000. Most was donated to charity, said Hasan's civil attorney, John Galligan.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.