One Question Too Many: The Trial of Captain Charles B. McVay III by Jeffrey S. Bagnell In the dog days of World War II, in a ah, then you hear that terrible high pitch backwater of the Pacific, the cruiser USS screamin' and the ocean turns red and spite Indianapolis was sunk. all the poundin' and the hollerin' they all What ensued was a nightmare. come in ... and rip you to pieces. Douglas Stanton, In Harm's Way. So, eleven hundred men went into the water. Three hundred sixteen men come out, the sharks took the rest, [July] the 29th, 1945. I. The Attack Anyway, we delivered the bomb.1 Around midnight on July 29, 1945 in the Philippine Sea, a Japanese submarine While the horror of what happened to the fired six torpedoes in a fan pattern at the Indianapolis after she “delivered the bomb” USS Indianapolis from a mile away. The is perhaps well known, thanks to Jaws and Indianapolis, or “Indy” as she was known, had other accounts, the travesty of justice visited on her captain six months later in a military a crew of 1136 men and was almost 600 Captain Charles B. McVay III feet long. Days before, the ship had delivered court, is less well known. To this day, the the main components of the world's second court martial of Captain McVay has to rank atomic bomb to a Pacific island airstrip where the Enola Gay lay among the most unfair trials in history. It is a lesson in not waiting. only how imperfect human systems of justice can be, but also illustrates, for lawyers today, the danger of asking what Irving A minute after they were fired, two or three of the torpedoes hit Younger once described as “one question too many.” the ship's starboard bow and exploded. Her captain, Charles Butler McVay III, ordered abandon ship. The huge cruiser quickly turned over on her side and sank within 15 minutes. II. The Trial Approximately 860 men who survived the initial explosions Stunned by the loss of the Indianapolis, and its own either fell or jumped into the black, 20-foot seas. After five inexplicable failure to rescue her survivors for almost five torturous days clinging to debris and treading water above days,2 the United States Navy quickly decided to place blame sharks clearly visible beneath them, about 300 were rescued. on Captain McVay. His court-martial represented the first Fans of the movie Jaws will recall Robert Shaw's riveting time that any wartime Navy captain was indicted for losing a monologue describing the historic context of the sinking, and ship to enemy action. what the surviving crew endured in the shark- infested water: Against the recommendation of Admiral Nimitz, the Navy What we didn't know was our bomb mission had been so brought two charges against him: first, that he had been secret, no distress signal had been sent . Very first light, negligent in failing to “zigzag” the Indianapolis at night to chief. The sharks come cruising. Sometimes that shark, avoid enemy submarine action;3 second, that he allegedly he looks right into you. Right into your eyes. And then, failed to issue abandon ship orders in an “efficient” manner © Jeffrey S. Bagnell, February 2014. Mr. Bagnell is a member of Lucas Bagnell Varga, LLC in Southport, Connecticut. during the 13 minutes after the torpedoes struck. make legal objection on the grounds of competency, since his nation is not of Christian belief, thus affecting ability to The Navy provided McVay with notice of the charges against him take the oath as a witness to tell the truth. on November 29, 1945. Incredibly, the trial was to begin less than a week later, on December 3, 1945. After much skirmishing over whether Hashimoto could be admitted as a witness, his examination began. Speaking On the first day, the judge advocate asked McVay whether he through an interpreter, he preliminarily stated that he believed was ready to proceed. The transcript shows that McVay replied, that “the soul exists after the death,” and was “fully aware of the unsurprisngly, “in the negative, stating that he did not feel that meaning of truth and falsehood.” sufficient time within which to properly prepare the case for the defense had elapsed” since receiving the charges. McVay then In terms of trial strategy, it is important to keep in mind that the requested, and was granted, a one-day postponement of the Navy was calling Hashimoto for the purpose of supporting its trial. He then pled “not guilty” to both charges. charge that McVay was negligent in failing to zigzag. This was the purpose of flying him around the world to testify against The prosecution’s case ultimately came down to the single McVay. issue of the alleged failure to zigzag at night during conditions of what it claimed were “good visibility.” McVay was cleared Apparently having learned of pre-trial statements by Hashimoto of the second charge of failing to issue abandon ship orders which supported McVay, however, the prosecution did not ask in an “efficient” manner. The ship had sunk in 15 minutes him on direct examination whether zigzagging was an effective and men were literally falling defensive measure. It did not even inquire whether the ship had overboard into the ship’s still been zigzagging. It passed over the topic in total silence. spinning propeller, so this And, as the prosecution had feared, Hashimoto testified on charge had no credibility from cross-examination that zigzagging would have made no real the beginning. But on the difference in the method of firing the torpedoes, but only the issue of zigzagging, the Navy way in which he maneuvered his submarine before firing: was determined to obtain a conviction. Q. Was the target zigzagging at the time you sighted it? To do this, it shocked many by A. At the time of the sighting of the target, there calling the commander of the was an indistinct blur, and I was unable to - - unable to Japanese submarine that sank determine whether or not it was zigzagging. Mochitsura Hashimoto the Indianapolis, Mochitsura Q. Was it zigzagging later? Hashimoto. The trial transcript clearly shows the animus against the Japanese at the time, A. There is no question of the fact that it made no radical which was only six months after V-J day. McVay’s counsel changes in course. It is faintly possible that there was a objected to his testimony thusly: minor change in course between the time of the sighting and the time of attack. If the court please, I wish to make a formal objection to the idea of calling one of the officers of the defeated Q. Would it have made any difference to you if the target had enemy who, as a nation, have been proven guilty of every been zigzagging on this attack? despicable treachery, of the most infamous cruelties, [The question was repeated]. and most barbarous practices in violation of all of the A. (As given by interpreter Commander Bromley) It would have laws of civilized warfare, to testify against one of our own involved no change in the method of firing the torpedoes, commanding officers on a matter affecting his professional but some changes in the maneuvering. ability and judgment . This was of course not the testimony the Navy wanted to hear. If the proposed witness Hashimoto is to be called, I will also © Jeffrey S. Bagnell, February 2014 What Hashimoto was essentially saying was that his submarine, accepted as a submarine expert, and that you are a which was less than a mile away from the Indianapolis, would professional naval officer; is that correct? have made no real changes to her firing method if the ship had A. I think so, sir. been zigzagging, and would have sunk her regardless. At the time, Japanese torpedoes traveled 50 miles per hour. When she Q. And the way the question was put to you was to obtain your was struck, the Indianapolis was moving at approximately 20 understanding as such a professional naval officer of the miles per hour - - toward the submarine. A course change under value or lack of value of zigzagging as an anti-submarine these circumstances would simply have exposed the ship’s broad measure. side to the torpedoes. A. I don’t understand your question. Several days after Hashimoto’s testimony, McVay’s defense [The question was repeated] counsel called as a submarine expert witness Captain Glynn R. Donaho, a highly decorated American submarine commander. He A. I understand what you have stated, but what you are gave testimony even more damaging to the prosecution’s case trying to get from me to answer, I am at a loss; I am not than Hashimoto. In a normal setting, it should have secured an hedging; I don’t understand how you want me to answer. acquittal: Q. Captain Donaho, I will be very glad to have the question Q. Based on your experience as outlined above, what is your read back to you, to have the reporter do it. opinion of the value of zigzagging of a target as affecting the [The question was repeated] accuracy of torpedo fire? A. My previous answer is my conception of the zigzag after A. With our modern submarines, fire control equipment, high the torpedoes have been fired, that is, the advantages of a speed torpedoes, a well trained fire control party, and with zigzag as well as the disadvantages. If the torpedoes had torpedo spreads, I didn’t find that zigzagging affected the not been fired, it will delay the firing by having to get a new results.