You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

U.S.

Advertisement
Also
General’s assault trial in jeopardy
FORT BRAGG, N.C. – The sexual assault case against an Army general was thrown into jeopardy Monday when the judge said the military may have improperly pressed ahead with a trial to send a message about its determination to curb rape and other widespread misconduct.
Judge Col. James Pohl declined to dismiss the charges against Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair but offered the defense another chance to plea-bargain the case with a set of military officials not previously involved with the matter.
The judge reviewed newly disclosed emails in Sinclair’s case and said he found the appearance of “unlawful command influence” in Fort Bragg officials’ decision to reject a plea bargain with the general in January. Under the military code of justice, the decision was supposed to be decided solely on the evidence, not its broader political implications.
Associated Press
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., right, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., arrive for a Senate vote on military sexual assault legislation Monday.

Sexual assault changes backed

Military law redo wins Senate nod

– The Senate overwhelmingly approved a bill late Monday making big changes in the military justice system to deal with sexual assault, including scrapping the nearly century-old practice of using a “good soldier defense” to raise doubts that a crime has been committed.

On a vote of 97-0, the Senate rallied behind a bipartisan plan crafted by three female senators – Democrat Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Republicans Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Deb Fischer of Nebraska – that would impose a half-dozen changes to combat the pervasive problem of rape and sexual offenses that Pentagon leaders have likened to a cancer within the ranks.

“Unanimous agreement in the U.S. Senate is pretty rare – but rarer still is the kind of sweeping, historic change we’ve achieved over the past year in the military justice system,” McCaskill said after the vote.

Still, that unanimous support was in sharp contrast to last week, when military leaders vigorously opposed a measure by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., that would have stripped commanders of their authority to prosecute cases and given that power to seasoned military lawyers outside the chain of command. The Senate voted 55-45 for that farther-reaching bill, but that was five votes short of the necessary 60.

Though expressing certain reservations, the Pentagon had been generally accepting of the new bill.

The House could act on the legislation as a stand-alone measure or incorporate it into the massive defense policy bill that it pulls together in the spring.

The new legislation would change the military rules of evidence to prohibit the accused from using good military character as an element of his defense in court-martial proceedings unless it was directly relevant to the alleged crime. The “good soldier defense” could encompass a defendant’s military record of reliability, dependability, professionalism and reputation as an individual who could be counted on in war and peacetime.

McCaskill described it as “the ridiculous notion that how well one flies a plane should have anything to do with whether they committed a crime.”

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday that the “military culture has been slow to grasp the painful truth that even a successful professional can also be a sexual predator.”

Under the bill, the defense could still be used in the sentencing phase. The Pentagon has indicated that it is crucial as commanders adjust sentences to allow for plea agreements.

The measure also would give accusers a greater say in whether their cases are litigated in the military system or civilian and would establish a confidential process to allow alleged victims to challenge their separation or discharge from the military. In addition, it would increase the accountability of commanders and extend all changes related to sexual assault cases to the service academies.

In cases where a prosecutor wanted to move ahead with a case but a commander disagreed, the civilian service secretary would be arbiter.

The Pentagon has reservations about that last provision, suggesting it could have a chilling effect on majors and captains if they think every decision gets kicked up to the service secretary.

Advertisement