In a trial that has stirred passionate debate, the mock prosecution of Lieutenant William Calley concluded with a verdict of not guilty on both counts of premeditated murder and assault with intent to murder. The ruling echoes the sentiment held by many who believe that Calley was not a cold-blooded killer, but rather a soldier following orders in the fog of war. The trial, modeled after the real-life case of Lt. Calley and the events at My Lai, underscored the complexities of combat, the failures of military intelligence, and the rigid structure of the chain of command.

The Case Against Lt. Calley

The prosecution, led by Grace Kim and Anna Buchanan, sought to paint a damning picture of Calley (Ryan Jang) as a man who chose to commit atrocities. They described the events at My Lai as a “massacre of unarmed, unresisting civilians,” a deliberate and premeditated violation of the Geneva Convention. Testimonies from key witnesses, including Vietnamese villagers and fellow soldiers, depicted a harrowing scene in which American troops systematically executed men, women, and children.

Prosecution witnesses included Tran Van Duc, Pham Thi Thuan, PFC Michael Bernhardt, and helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson. Their testimonies told a grim tale of destruction and death. Tran Van Duc (Lunette Shaw), a seven-year-old boy at the time of the massacre, recalled someone knocking at his front door, and in the next moment, his house being completely on fire. He later hid in an irrigation ditch, only to see his friend thrown in and shot. Pham Thi Thuan (Elena Goiria) described being forced out of her burning home, lined up by a ditch with others, and witnessing Lt. Calley personally gunning down her daughter. PFC Bernhardt (Ava Donevan), a soldier who was present at My Lai, stated that he saw “only unarmed civilians, women and children included.” Hugh Thompson (Javier Klein), flying overhead, reported seeing bodies piled in ditches and insisted that there was no hostile resistance from the villagers.

The prosecution sought to frame Calley’s actions as those of a man who had taken it upon himself to wipe out innocent lives, rather than someone trapped in the chaos of war. They emphasized that soldiers are bound to refuse unlawful orders and that Calley’s conduct could not be excused under military protocol.

The Defense: A Soldier Following Orders

The defense, represented by Joe Cogan and Adam Liakhovitski, approached the trial from a starkly different angle. Their argument rested on the premise that Calley was a scapegoat for the failures of the U.S. Army. They contended that the real responsibility for the My Lai tragedy lay with the upper echelons of the military, particularly Captain Ernest Medina and Colonel Henderson, who had provided false intelligence and cultivated an atmosphere of aggression.

Through witness testimonies and cross-examinations, the defense constructed a compelling

narrative: Lt. Calley was a young, inexperienced officer who was thrust into the horrors of Vietnam with inadequate training. Described as a “mediocre soldier at best,” Calley was under immense pressure from his superior, Medina, a man known for his aggressive and sometimes vengeful leadership style. The intelligence briefings leading up to My Lai had convinced Charlie Company that the village was a Viet Cong stronghold, with enemy fighters outnumbering them two to one. The troops were given a clear directive: search and destroy.

Defense witness Lawrence La Croix (Jingyi Xing) testified that the orders were unambiguous—My Lai was to be treated as a hostile zone, with civilians supposedly evacuated. Nicholas Capezza (Sarah Baek), a medic, stated that the soldiers were told they were entering a combat zone. Even Captain Medina (Aidan Raghu) admitted that he had emphasized an aggressive approach to the mission, reinforcing the belief that every villager was a Viet Cong sympathizer.

Lt. Calley himself took the stand, describing how his men entered the village expecting an ambush. Instead, they found a silent, seemingly deserted settlement. But paranoia and fear ran high—soldiers had lost comrades to booby traps and hidden enemies before. The defense highlighted that in Vietnam, the line between combatant and civilian was often blurred. Women and children had been known to carry grenades, and the Viet Cong used villages as staging grounds for attacks. The soldiers of Charlie Company had been conditioned to assume hostility and act swiftly.

The Chain of Command: Who Bears Responsibility?

One of the defense’s strongest points was the emphasis on the chain of command. The military operates on a structure where orders flow downward, and soldiers are expected to comply without question. The defense argued that Lt. Calley was merely executing orders from above. If there was fault in the mission’s execution, it belonged to those who provided the intelligence and set the objectives, not the junior officer who followed through.

Captain Medina, under cross-examination, admitted that he had instructed his troops to be aggressive, stating that hesitation in battle could mean death. The defense pointed to the failures of military intelligence, which misrepresented My Lai as a combat zone rather than a village of civilians. Calley, with his limited training and battlefield experience, had no reason to doubt the validity of his mission.

The defense also questioned inconsistencies in witness testimonies. While prosecution witnesses described a deliberate massacre, other accounts suggested widespread confusion among the troops. It was unclear who fired first, and Calley was not the only soldier to engage in violence that day. The defense challenged whether it was fair to single him out when many others participated in the same actions under the same orders.

The Verdict: Not Guilty on All Counts

After hearing all testimonies, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on both counts. The decision signaled an acknowledgment that while My Lai was undoubtedly a tragedy, placing sole blame on Lt. Calley was neither just nor reflective of the broader failures that led to the incident. The ruling supported the defense’s assertion that Calley was being unfairly targeted as a symbol of wartime misconduct while those truly responsible for the failed mission evaded accountability.

The Legacy of the Trial

The mock trial of Lt. Calley reignited a long-standing debate about responsibility in war. Should soldiers be held accountable for following orders in combat, especially when those orders come from a higher authority? Is it realistic to expect young, inexperienced officers to defy commands based on their own moral compass in the heat of battle?

From a conservative perspective, the verdict was a victory for the principles of military order and discipline. The U.S. armed forces function on the bedrock principle of the chain of command. If soldiers begin questioning orders on the battlefield, it could lead to hesitation, disarray, and defeat. The Vietnam War was already plagued by political interference and public backlash—dismantling the military’s structural integrity would only have exacerbated the challenges faced by American forces.

Moreover, the trial reinforced the idea that political and military leaders must bear responsibility for their directives. If blame for My Lai is to be assigned, it should rest with those who gave the orders, not those who followed them. The failure was not in Calley’s execution of his mission but in the intelligence failures and leadership decisions that sent his platoon into an ill-defined combat scenario.

While the real-life trial of Lt. Calley resulted in a conviction, the mock trial’s outcome challenges whether justice was truly served. In the eyes of many, William Calley was a soldier caught in the merciless machinery of war— “an ant on the wrong side of the American military’s boot,” as Liakhovitski stated in his closing statement. In the end, his acquittal serves as a reminder that war is never black and white, and the responsibility for its horrors extends far beyond the battlefield.