$100,000 “LOAN,” “GIFT,” OR “BRIBE” – IT’S GOT TO
BE ONE OR THE OTHER – GIVES NEW HOPE TO
LOCKED-UP AIR FORCE MAJOR BEHIND BARS AT
MIRAMAR – CLARENCE ANDERSON’S CIVILIAN
LAWYER SAYS EXCHANGE OF BIG BUCKS BETWEEN
OFFICER’S THEN MOTHER-IN-LAW AND “WITNESS”
AGAINST HIM IN BITTER DIVORCE BATTLE – BRIAN
MIZER HAILS NEW HEARING BY AIR FORCE COURT
OF APPEALS IN PETITION FOR NEW TRIAL
© 2017 MilitaryCorruption.com
Former Air Force Maj. Clarence Anderson III (CAIII) and his dogged civilian defense attorney have some reason to hope justice will finally come their way in the wake of a decision by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals to hold a hearing this week on a petition for a new trial.
While sources say the ruling could take months before it is handed down, just the fact that the hearing will take place at all, is hugely significant. It is scheduled to begin April 18 before a three-judge panel.
Hard-charging Brian Mizer says his client is entitled to a new trial because the major’s ex-wife “committed perjury” and “made payments to a witness” against Anderson during his 2015 court-martial. Mizer is the Senior Appellate Defense Counsel with the Air Force Appellate Defense Division at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.
The fact the payment took place was unknown to the court or judge two years ago. Now, it could be vital to Anderson regaining his freedom. He is presently serving a 42-month stretch at the Naval Consolidated Brig at Miramar, Calif.
“WITNESS” ADMITS PAYMENT ON TAPE
During his 2015 trial, the officer’s estranged wife testified he told her he could kill her and “make it look like PTSD.”
It turns out that Maj. Anderson’s devoted mom obtained key evidence when she tape-recorded the witness admitting he received a payment of big bucks. That was enough for a post-trial hearing to be held, but the judge in the case, Lt. Col. Marvin Tubbs, wasn’t impressed.
In an attitude that seems to us as being “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind’s made up” Tubbs claims the $100,000 – a “loan,” “gift.” or “bribe” depending on whom you discuss it with – “wouldn’t have substantially affected” the outcome of the trial.