Thae Ohu nervously wrung her hands as she sat in the courtroom, awaiting the beginning of her court-martial hearing.
She had already spent nearly seven months in the brig, where access to mental health care remained restricted.
This came after she reported being raped by a fellow service member and was subsequently diagnosed with severe mental health disabilities, intense paranoia, and "gaps in thought processing," conditions that prompted a Navy medical board to recommend her medical retirement.
Instead of receiving the treatment and care she needed, Ohu faced a felony conviction.
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
She was charged with attempted murder, a charge that her former boyfriend—her alleged victim—described as trumped-up.
The conviction could result in a lengthy prison sentence and the revocation of her medical retirement, further compromising her ability to heal and move forward with her life.
Yet, as she sat in court, it became evident that not all Marines in attendance held the proceedings in serious regard.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
"This kid has her own public affairs officer?" laughed Maj. Albert L. Evans, the regional defense counsel at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, just moments before the hearing began.
He made this remark in front of three subordinate Marines, seemingly unaware that two journalists, both Marine veterans, stood nearby and overheard him.
The remark and the broader dismissive attitude from senior Marine leadership underscored the lack of professionalism and respect that had plagued Ohu’s case from the outset.
According to Capt. Samuel M. Stephenson, a Marine spokesman who witnessed the event, the comment was "inappropriate," particularly coming from a senior officer.
However, despite recognizing the behavior as problematic, neither he nor other present officers took action to correct it. The Marine Corps declined multiple requests for comment regarding the incident.
Systemic Failures in Justice and Mental Health Support
Since the onset of Ohu’s court-martial, the Marine Corps has made multiple attempts to restrict media access to her case.
These efforts were apparent when journalists struggled with an inadequate video feed in an auxiliary room, limiting their ability to observe the proceedings.
Meanwhile, Naval investigators had failed to conduct a thorough investigation of Ohu’s sexual assault allegations. Despite medical recommendations for mental health care, the Corps denied her essential treatment, halted her medical retirement, and restricted access to legal representation.
Ohu’s defense team also faced repeated obstacles, including a lack of privacy, limitations on recording devices for case preparation, and even a denied request for a private investigator.
As if these barriers were not enough, Ohu’s legal team also alleged that the staff judge advocate overseeing the case threatened them with criminal investigation.
The threat came in response to their decision to photograph injuries Ohu sustained following a suicide attempt in the brig.
"Their failures have led her to the circumstances that she’s confronting directly because they’re in total control over her well-being, given that she’s in confinement," said Eric Montalvo, the civilian attorney leading Ohu’s defense.
A former Marine judge advocate, Montalvo argued that the photographs were lawful and necessary due to inadequate medical care at Naval Hospital Portsmouth.
Ohu’s deteriorating mental health was no surprise to those familiar with her history. She had a documented history of self-harm, including multiple suicide attempts before and during her military service.
Her sister, Pan Phyu, an active-duty sailor, noted that Ohu had received a mental health waiver to enlist in the Marine Corps, something that should have raised red flags. Despite this, the military repeatedly ignored her struggles, even after she attempted to take her life in the brig.
Unlawful Command Influence and Disregard for Fair Trial
Ohu’s case is not an isolated instance of misconduct in the military justice system. Unlawful command influence has tainted previous Marine court-martial proceedings, most notably in the case of Sgt. Rob Richards.
Richards, a Marine sniper, was caught in controversy after a video surfaced showing him and fellow Marines urinating on Taliban corpses in 2012.
Despite being a decorated combat veteran, Richards faced court-martial proceedings that were later overturned due to interference from the highest-ranking officer in the Corps at the time, Gen. James Amos.
Similarly, Ohu’s defense team argued that Marine leadership had actively interfered with her case, diminishing her right to a fair trial.
According to attorney Guy Womack, the perception that senior Marine officers treated Ohu’s case as a joke could undermine public confidence in military justice.
"To the public or any other person who doesn’t know the efforts these defense attorneys are making, they may think that if [Maj. Evans] thinks it’s a joke, then maybe they do too," Womack remarked.
Despite attempts to downplay the situation, evidence of potential bias and mishandling continued to mount. One of the most disturbing revelations came in the form of a Christmas decoration tacked outside the courtroom—displaying the name of the Marine whom Ohu accused of raping her.
Although officials claimed the decoration was "repurposed" from a previous holiday season, its presence in the building where Ohu’s case was being heard raised serious ethical concerns.
Adding to the growing list of grievances, Ohu’s defense team accused the prosecution of hindering case preparation. Brig personnel allegedly eavesdropped on privileged attorney-client conversations and denied basic legal accommodations.
These obstructions led the trial judge, Lt. Col. Michael Zimmerman, to mandate that Ohu be granted off-base meetings with her legal team to properly prepare her defense.
Despite these rulings, further challenges arose. When the defense requested a private investigator, Maj. Leonard Moffa, a prosecuting attorney, argued that Ohu’s team was already sufficiently staffed to conduct their own investigations.
The request was denied, a decision the defense said would significantly hamper their efforts.
A Fight for Transparency and Justice
Later in the trial, Ohu’s military defense attorney, Maj. Kurt Sorenson, introduced emails alleging that Lt. Col. Alan L. Schuller, the staff judge advocate, had engaged in efforts to intimidate Ohu’s defense team.
"Without Ohu’s assistance, especially without investigative resources, it’s only us investigating, and we need Cpl. Ohu," Sorenson argued. The judge, Zimmerman, agreed that some actions taken against the defense team were inappropriate, stating, "We can and should do better."
Complicating matters further, the court proposed moving Ohu’s trial from Quantico to North Carolina, a shift that Montalvo argued would restrict her legal access and disrupt case coverage.
The motion to relocate the case was strongly contested but remains under consideration.
Ultimately, the defense’s motion to remove Schuller for unlawful command influence was denied.
A Marine Corps spokesman released a statement saying that the judge ruled the "defense failed to meet its burden to show that the [staff judge advocate] should be disqualified."
Following the ruling, Montalvo expressed frustration with the Marine Corps’ handling of the case. "This is not a competition to win something at all costs, and that’s exactly what’s being demonstrated here in their behavior," he said.
He further criticized the Corps for knowingly enlisting a recruit with documented mental health issues, only to later weaponize those same struggles against her.
Ohu’s case represents far more than a singular court-martial; it highlights systemic issues in the military justice system, the failure of leadership to support service members struggling with mental health, and the blatant disregard for due process.
As her trial continues, the question remains: if this is how the Marine Corps treats one of its own, what hope is there for others who find themselves in similarly dire circumstances?
WATCH THE VIDEO
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.