Here is an Article published in a July issue of the Whiteman (AFB) Warrior newspaper. It was written by a complainant in a military rape trial I successfully defended (that did not occur at Whiteman AFB, despite the story being published in their base paper). The link will take you to the article, which appears at the top of the first page after the cover. It is:
“Zero control: Through the eyes of a
rape survivor”
Below is the text of a rebuttal article I was unsuccessful in getting published to respond to her article:
START-------------------------------------------|
Particularly
over the last few years, I have watched as misinformation about rape and sexual
assault cases in the military justice system has been spread by lawmakers and
military leaders, and published by the media, as if the information was true
and accurate – and the recently published article by Lt L.F. about the sexual
assault court-martial in which she was the complainant is just one more example
of misinformation being published as if it’s true and accurate. I was the defense counsel in that case, so I
can speak directly about her claims. I
am also a former USAF JAG attorney, who has female family and friends serving
in the Air Force today.
At
the outset, before I specifically respond to Lt L.F.’s article, it is important
to understand that as long as misinformation is spread and accepted as
“gospel,” the perception of the unfairness of the military justice system will grow
and this could ultimately lead to the military losing its system of military
justice in whole, or in large part. That is why more military leaders and JAGs
need to speak out about the actual truth regarding the military justice
system’s handling of rape and sexual assault allegations.
In
her article, Lt L.F. claims “Our legal process is slanted toward letting the
accused go free…” and “…any attempt for justice will be challenging because the
cards are stacked in favor of the accused” and “I truly don’t think any jury
wants to convict. Convicting would mean
they have to make a decision that puts someone in jail and tarnishes the
accused’s career forever.” These
comments are not only inaccurate; they are brazenly dismissive of the court
members and the process. She emphasizes
this by claiming the members’ not guilty verdict was due to some sort of “fancy
tap dancing” by the defense.
The
court members in the case involving Lt L.F. were principled Air Force officers
who listened carefully to the testimony and considered the evidence and
arguments throughout the case. Their
verdict was not a surprise. It would
have been a surprise, and a cruel injustice, for the verdict to have been
guilty. What Lt L.F. failed to mention
in her article is that considerable evidence and testimony was presented at
trial that not only contradicted her story, but addressed what the witnesses
described as her history of credibility issues.
The story she told a medical provider contradicted her testimony. Friends and coworkers took the stand and
contradicted her testimony. A close
member of her family took the stand and contradicted her testimony. And, most notably, Lt L.F. made her claims
about the night at issue before knowing there would be security camera video
from the bar where the events at issue began.
That surveillance video contradicted her story. There was no “fancy tap dancing.” The court members made a conscientious and
correct decision based on the evidence and the testimony in the case.
Contrary
to manipulated public perception, the Air Force takes sexual assault
allegations very seriously and expends considerable effort and resources to
accommodate those who claim sexual assault and to prosecute their claims. This includes the involvement of SARCs,
Victim Advocates, Victim Witness Liaisons, Special Victims’ Counsel,
prosecutors, law enforcement, commanders, and conducting sexual assault
briefings and programs with mandatory attendance. The government has at its disposal as many prosecutors
and paralegals as they need to devote to the case, including specially trained
senior prosecutors, and resources such as SFS, AFOSI, forensic experts and sole
control of the money spent on each case.
While the accused is publicly named, the complainant is not. With surprising frequency, the military
branches take jurisdiction over cases that civilian prosecutors aren’t
interested in and/or have already refused to prosecute.
With
regard to trial itself, the defense is not permitted to ask any questions we
want to or to dig into someone’s life to try to get them to “give up.” There are rules against that which are
scrupulously adhered to and enforced by the Military Judge. The defense has to formally request
permission to ask certain types of questions, and the Military Judge rules on
these requests in closed motion hearings to protect the complainant. The questions that were asked of Lt L.F. at
trial were done so based on prior rulings by the Military Judge. There was never any interview questioning of
Lt L.F. by defense counsel alone. There
were always members of the process in attendance from both sides. It should also be noted that Lt L.F. not only
complained about the defense, she complained about her original female
prosecution team as well. The lead female prosecutor at the time was, and is, a
highly regarded field grade Air Force officer.
END-------------------------------------------|
While that military court-martial
case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case
has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success
in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense
lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the
outcome of any military trial or case.
For more information about the
military justice system, particularly cases alleging rape and/or sexual
assault in violation of UCMJ Article 120, type “rape” or “sexual assault”
into the search bar above the blog posts.
We also offer free initial consultations for a case you may be involved in. Just call us.
Thank you.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank J. Spinner and I
(attorney Richard V. Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our
perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military
defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively
in the area of military law and military justice. This blog addresses issues in
military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense,
court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other
military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted
for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a
particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens and The
Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. These military defense
law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado and Northern Florida, but
the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the
attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed.
No comments:
Post a Comment