Cherkasky Weighs in on Green Beret Murder Charges

As a distinguished expert in military law, the nations most respected news outlets and personalities rely on Andy Cherkasky’s opinion regarding headline grabbing national news.

Andy Stars on Nancy Grace’s Radio Show

A U.S. Army special forces officer faces a military trial for murder after he admitted that he killed a Taliban bombmaker in Afghanistan after he concluded the man had made a bomb that killed two marines who served with him. Nancy Grace discusses the case against Major Matt Golsteyn with California lawyer & former US Air Force JAG officer Andrew Cherkasky, private investigator Vincent Hill, who served in the U.S. Army as a counter intelligence specialist, Atlanta criminal defense lawyer & former prosecutor Holly Hughes, psychologist & lawyer Dr. Brian Russell — host of Investigation Discovery’s “Fatal Vows” series, and Crime Stories producer Alan Duke.

History of the Maj Goldsteyn Case

President Trump tweeted his anger over the recent preferral of charges for premeditated murder against an Army Major that killed an Al Qaeda member in 2010. Maj Matt Golsteyn admitted to killing and then burying an Al Qaeda member that he believed made a bomb that killed two Marines days prior. President Trump’s anger is shared by many because the simple idea that a soldier could be held criminal liable for killing a Al Qaeda members seems shocking.

At the request of many, I will be reviewing the case of a “U.S. Military hero,” Major Matt Golsteyn, who is charged with murder. He could face the death penalty from our own government after he admitted to killing a Terrorist bomb maker while overseas. @PeteHegseth @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 16, 2018

The knee-jerk reaction of the President and so many others seems to ignore many of the facts at play. As best can be determined from public information, including from Maj Goldsteyn during a 2016 interview on Fox News, the individual was first apprehended by Goldsteyn and his men and detained, but was later ordered to be released by higher command. Without authority, Goldsteyn gunned this individual down after he had been released. He later buried the body, then dug the body up before burning it.

Maj Goldsteyn lost his 2015 Board of Inquiry, with the panel ultimately determining he acted with conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. That panel did not directly determine whether he committed murder. The determined he should be discharged with a General discharge.

Andy’s Position on Maj Goldsteyn

Andy Cherkasky is an expert on Nancy Grace’s radio show

When our attorneys are called upon to act as experts, we try to be neutral and fair. A defense attorney that fails to see the weakness of a case and just views it from a “defense perspective” is guaranteed to fail. A fundamental premises of any effective argument is to understand the strength of the opposition.

In the case of Maj Goldsteyn, his defense attorney has done a terrible job of controlling the narrative, and an even worse job of presenting a viable defense. Here’s what the problem is: as much at Maj Goldsteyn wants to claim the killing was due to his concern that the Al Qaeda member posed a future threat to American servicemembers, he has failed to establish the imminency of the threat.

It’s impressive that Maj Goldsteyn’s family has caught the attention of the President, and Trump does have the ability to end this prosecution. However, the court of public opinion isn’t going to be the lens through which the highly educated and professional military panel views this case.

A panel of Army officers in the rank of Major and above will decide this case if it makes it all the way to court-martial. What Maj Goldsteyn’s lawyer needs to wrap his head around immediately is the fact that these experienced officers have served since the beginning of OIF and OEF, served during stop-loss in the mid 2000’s, know many soldiers that died in combat, were issued orders that risked American lives, respected the rules of engagement even when it didn’t feel right, and understand the difference between the profession of military officership and the chaos of vigilante justice.