From Yahoo News:
"A six-man jury found Petty Officer 1st Class Julio Huertas, 29, of Blue Island, Illinois, not guilty of charges of dereliction of duty and attempting to influence the testimony of another service member. The jury spent two hours deliberating the verdict."
In my opinion the trial must have been over as soon as the prisoner who was allegedly abused had testified:
"The Iraqi prisoner who was allegedly abused, Ahmed Hashim Abed, testified Wednesday on the opening day of the trial that he was beaten by U.S. troops while hooded and tied to a chair."
Why would a SEAL have to tie a prisoner up and put a hood on him in order to beat him? And the clincher? Pictures of him after the "abuse." A single cut inside his lip.
A Navy Petty Officer claims to have seen the SEAL punch the prisoner in the gut and then to have seen blood spurt out of the prisoner's mouth.
"But defense attorneys tried to cast doubt on the beating claims, showing photographs of Abed after the alleged beating in which he had a visible cut inside his lip but no obvious signs of bruising or injuries anywhere else."
I'm not sure what really happened, but I have a hard time believing that the witness saw blood spurt of the prisoner's mouth when he had a hood on his head. It doesn't make sense to me logically, either. If they were going to rough him up, why not do it when first captured, then say he was resisting? Frankly, I don't think you could get a conviction in a million years unless the guy was beaten to a bloody pulp, or had extremities broken, etc. Trade the career of a SEAL for a terrorist punch? I don't think so.