Posted on 01/28/2018 3:53:22 PM PST by jazusamo
The nation’s highest military court has thrown out the 2012 rape conviction of a Coast Guard enlisted man because admirals and prosecutors packed the seven-member jury with five women, four of whom held jobs as advocates for victims of sexual assault.
In a 5-0 ruling that could change how the military conducts sex abuse trials, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces unleashed caustic criticism of all involved.
From the Coast Guard commandant down to an appellate court to the original trial judge, the high court said all contributed to a “stain on the military justice system.” The military has been under intense pressure to wipe out sexual harassment and assault, the five civilian judges noted.
The opinion, delivered by Judge Margaret A. Ryan, said the four admirals who played a role in assembling the officer and enlisted jury pool produced an illegal “gender-based court stacking.” She suggested that the admirals’ role amounted to unlawful command influence, which military law analysts see as the enemy of fair trials for service members.
The court ruling said the trial judge “failed to conduct even a rudimentary investigation” into defense attorneys’ complaints of an unfair jury.
It also said the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals failed in its duty to protect against unlawful command influence as it “rationalized the error away as a benign effort to seek inclusiveness.”
“Yet the error in this case is both so obvious and so egregious that it adversely affected not only Appellant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial panel, but also the essential fairness and integrity of the military justice system,” Judge Ryan and the four other judges wrote.
Even worse, the high court suggested that the enlisted man never would have been convicted by a more gender-proportionate jury...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
In the article.
She was drunk, could not remember what happened and other witnesses contradicted her story.
At worse reasonable doubt.
The hearing officer said that there was not enough to make a case.
He was overruled.
Very similar to what we are about to experience with the current special prosecutor and his packed cesspool of investigators...
Agreed...If Zukunft was unaware of the jury stacking he's either ignorant or a liar.
Thanks Piasa. You saved me the trouble of cutting and pasting.
The defendant ought to sue the commanders involved for legal negligence causing personal, financial, emotional and professional damages on the defendant, using he military tribunal’s verdict as evidence. If it were possible (I doubt) he ought to seek higher up’s review of multiple officers conduct ratings and any promotions during the period the officers involved abused their positions to prejudice the earlier decision against the defendant. During such trials they may testify to demands from officers above them to skew the jury against the defendant to fulfill political goals. Eventually the hand of the Obama White House might even be exposed.
Either way, his a$$ should be kicked to the curb.
Amen to that.
Having spent more than six years in the Marine Corps as a non-lawyer legal officer, this case is really surprising. Particularly, the fact it was sent back by the Appelate court only to have their legal concerns totally ignored. The Appelate Court’s anger was palpable in their response including their ruling that the charges be dismissed with prejudice. Hopefully this results in systemic changes in how the Coast Guard approaches the unprejudiced application of both the UCMJ and the Constitution.
That jury is like the college rape tribunals staffed by social justice warriors who think a victim must always be believed, you’re not allowed to show evidence that proves you’re innocent, and presume guilt.
Exactly...That very thought crossed my mind when I first read this piece.
Agreed...It’s also surprising to me how adamant the court was and it’s not just Judge Ryan but the other four judges.
The Coast Guard and their JAGs had better start making changes.
Ahhh. The victim had been drinking!
GUILTY!!!
And a woman to boot wrote the scathing opinion.
I honestly am very surprised about this, and most especially that the Washington Times reported on it.
All males in positions of authority now are under siege. Their accusers are always presented as helpless victims pure of heart and clean as the wind driven snow.
A male has to go to herculean lengths to prove a charge may be baseless or even false. Even when that occurs, the male's reputation is rarely restored. Ask some lacrosse players how their lives are going. There is a presumption that the woman is always right in these accusations particularly in the modern media. People ignore the possibility that women can be just as sexually aggressive and exploitative as men.
People forget that just 30 years ago the sexual revolution was in full swing and popular culture encouraged women to be aggressive in their relationships.
People forget that we had sex clubs and swinger parties designed for "guilt free" random sex. People forget that popular magazines that now claim to be victim's advocates, promoted hedonistic lifestyles and ridiculed monogamy then.
Very few see this current trend of victims coming out as contrived to create an agenda for the 2018 and 2020 election cycles. You can bet for those upcoming elections, the only "qualified" candidates will be women who claim they have been victimized by men.
Why the surprise?
The Washington Times is not the Washington Post.
We would often receive patients who stated that they were raped.These women were evaluated first by specially trained nurses who then briefed the surgeon and/or gynecologist who was to examine her.
In most cases,after having evaluated the women,I'd hear the nurse say to her colleagues things like "poor woman"...meaning that she believed the claims of the patient.But sometimes I'd hear them express doubts regarding the truthfulness (or,perhaps,"accuracy") of the patient's claims.
And BTW...the nurses trained to evaluate and examine these patients were all women.It was felt that having males do such work would prove too distressing to too many patients.
where did it say the charges were flimsy?...
_________________________________________________________
Cherry,
Read the article. The jury was stacked with female rape victim advocates. the article did say the accuser couldn’t remember facts like where or when it happened.
This is what we normally refer to as a kangaroo court, this will probably go in the dictionary as the definition.
House Atreides: over the past few years under the Obama regime, the Coast Guard was feminized and neutered at the highest command levels.
Glad that there is a military court that realizes that “justice” is “blind”, not dressed in dresses only.
Seriously? Someone thought that this was a good idea?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.