The Ernest Medina Court-Martial: Command Responsibility After My Lai
On this page
Army Captain Ernest L. Medina commanded Charlie Company, the unit whose soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed civilians at My Lai, South Vietnam, on March 16, 1968. He was not in the village during the killing. He stayed near his helicopter’s landing spot a few hundred yards away and kept radio contact with his platoons. He went on trial in September 1971 on charges of involuntary manslaughter of at least 100 civilians, the murder of a woman, and two counts of assault on a prisoner. A panel of five combat officers acquitted him on every count after about an hour. His platoon leader, William Calley, had been convicted of murder six months earlier. The two outcomes show the difference between direct liability for killings a soldier carries out and a commander’s liability for killings his troops commit. For a commander, the case turned on what he knew while the killing was happening and when he knew it.
The Medina Record in Brief
| Item | Record |
|---|---|
| Accused | Captain Ernest L. Medina, commander of Charlie Company, 11th Brigade, Americal Division |
| Event | March 16, 1968, My Lai; 347 killed by an Army inquiry's count, 504 on a Vietnamese memorial |
| Position during the assault | Near his helicopter landing spot a few hundred yards outside the village, in radio contact with his platoons |
| Charges | Involuntary manslaughter of at least 100 civilians; murder of a woman; two counts of assault on a prisoner |
| Counsel | F. Lee Bailey and a military lawyer |
| Trial | September 1971 |
| Verdict | Not guilty on all counts, after about an hour's deliberation by five combat officers |
| Afterward | Resigned from the Army; died May 2018 in Peshtigo, Wisconsin, at 81 |
What Medina Was Told and What He Said
The facts here come from The New York Times obituary of Medina, published May 13, 2018, available in a copy hosted by MuckRock. According to Medina’s testimony at Calley’s court-martial, Army intelligence said the villagers would be at market when the troops arrived. “Those left in the village at that hour would supposedly be Vietcong soldiers who had blended in with the population. The intelligence was faulty.”
Medina testified that in his briefing “he had not generally addressed the issue of what to do with civilians in the village since he assumed everyone there would be Vietcong.” He also testified that when a soldier asked, “Do we kill women and children?” he replied, “No, you do not kill women and children. You must use common sense”. Calley testified that Medina ordered him by radio to “get rid of” people he called “enemy personnel”. Medina denied that the conversation happened, and his radio operator corroborated him.
How a Commander Can Be Charged
A soldier who fires on civilians is liable for his own acts. A commander who is not present needs a different route to liability. Two appear in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
| Route | What the government must prove | Where the knowledge question enters |
|---|---|---|
| Principal under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/877">Article 77</a> | That he "aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures" the offense | Requires proof that he commanded or aided the killings themselves |
| Involuntary manslaughter under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/919">Article 119</a> | An unlawful killing by culpable negligence, which can include a failure to act when there is a duty to act | Culpable negligence requires "a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to others" |
The Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), Part IV, paragraph 57, defines culpable negligence as “a degree of carelessness greater than simple negligence”, and notes that “When there is no legal duty to act there can be no neglect.” A manslaughter charge of that kind depends on a duty to act once a commander learns his troops are killing civilians. The question at trial was whether Medina knew, in time to act, that they were. The table states both routes in the current Manual’s terms. The 1971 panel decided under the instructions the military judge gave it, and a reader who needs the exact knowledge standard applied to Medina should read those instructions in the trial record rather than the current Manual.
The Trial: A Contest Over Knowledge
Both sides framed the case around that question. “The defense contended that Captain Medina was unaware of large-scale killings of defenseless civilians until they had already occurred”, the Times reported. “The prosecution argued that the defense account was not credible since Captain Medina had been in continual radio contact with his platoons.”
Someone outside the chain of command intervened. A helicopter pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson Jr., “saw signs of mass killings, landed in the village, demanded at gunpoint that Lieutenant Calley halt the attack and alerted higher authorities by radio.” The panel heard a commander who said he did not know, against a prosecution theory that a commander in constant radio contact must have known. It acquitted after about an hour.
Calley and Medina Side by Side
| Calley | Medina | |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Platoon leader in the village | Company commander outside the village |
| Theory of liability | Direct: murder of people he killed or ordered killed | Derivative: manslaughter by failing to act, plus a separate murder count |
| Defense | Obedience to Medina's order | Lack of knowledge until after the killing |
| Outcome | Convicted of murdering 22 people, March 1971 | Acquitted on all counts, September 1971 |
The obedience defense failed for Calley because an order to kill unarmed civilians is plainly unlawful. Medina’s defense was of a different kind. It did not justify the killings. It denied that he knew of them while they could still be stopped.
Accountability Beyond the Courtroom
Calley “was the only soldier convicted on criminal charges in connection with the massacre”, the Times wrote. Other officers faced administrative consequences. Major General Samuel W. Koster, the Americal Division commander, was found by an Army inquiry “to have failed to investigate reports of the mass killings adequately” and “was demoted one rank, to brigadier general.” Colonel Oran Henderson “stood trial and was acquitted of cover-up charges.” Lieutenant General William R. Peers, who led the Army’s inquiry, declared: “Our inquiry clearly established that a tragedy of major proportions occurred there on that day.”
Medina resigned from the Army after his court-martial. In 1988 he told the Associated Press: “I have regrets for it, but I have no guilt over it because I didn’t cause it”.
A Commander’s Liability Turns on Knowledge
A commander’s criminal responsibility for his troops’ killings is not automatic. Under the UCMJ, the government must connect him to the killings, either as a principal who commanded or aided them or through culpable negligence in a duty he had. Both routes bring the case back to what the commander knew and when. Medina’s acquittal shows the weight of that question when the commander was not on the scene and his own account is that he learned of the killings only after they ended. The demotion of a general who failed to investigate shows the other track: a commander can be held accountable administratively for failing in his duty even where no criminal conviction follows.
Sources
- The New York Times, “Ernest Medina, Army Captain Acquitted in My Lai Massacre, Dies at 81”, May 13, 2018 (copy hosted by MuckRock, PDF)
- 10 U.S.C. 877, Article 77, Principals (Cornell LII)
- 10 U.S.C. 919, Article 119, Manslaughter (Cornell LII)
- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024 ed.), Part IV, para. 57 (Article 119).
This case study describes a public court-martial and the accounts reported after it. It is educational information, not legal advice.