As I mentioned in the previous blog post, this was the original comment I posted in response to the Stars and Stripes and Military.com articles regarding the Air Force SVC program in rape and sexual assault court-martial cases (UCMJ Article 120):
http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force-program-a-rare-bright-spot-in-military-s-sex-assault-fight-1.269628
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/02/27/air-force-program-rare-bright-spot-in-sex-assault-fight.html
“With all due respect, this is a very
one-sided article (more of a promotional article than a balanced account) that
doesn't seek to discover the continuing problems caused by SVCs for the
fairness of this criminal justice system - some of which were detailed, with
specificity, in the USAF Trial Defense Division's appellate brief in the LRM
case. The SVC program makes Air Force lawyers, in many instances, still act
like non-lawyers. In other words, when discovery and evidentiary rules and case
law are clear, we are still seeing SVCs cast that aside to advocate for the
alleged victim's nonlegal objection, regardless of what the law says. While
that might be appreciated by alleged victims, how are nonlegal arguments
contrary to the law really considered to be "success?" It is also
important to understand that all the LRM decision stood for was the narrow
proposition that SVCs could speak to the court in a limited capacity on behalf
of alleged victims. It did not rule on the substance of SVC actions/representation
- such as being obstructionist with regard to witness interviews, discovery,
etc. While I won't paint every SVC with a broad brush, because I have seen
improvement and have dealt with SVCs who still understand the requirements of
the law, there have been plenty of problems, that continue to this day, with
regard to SVCs forgetting that they are still lawyers and, as lawyers, the
procedural rules and law applies to them as well.”
This initial comment was followed by this back and forth:
Oh...I don't know...maybe about the
same way as some commanders in the past have forgotten that they aren't
lawyers, judges or even legal experts...or perhaps the way some juries have waived
just punishment because of the stars on someone's shoulder.
Just saying...give the program a
chance....it's been a learning process for everyone. There are always going to
be high and low points in a learning curve.
The point
is that instead of a one-sided cheerleading article, how about accurate,
balanced journalism that describes both sides of the issue? I deal with these
cases and SVCs constantly, and I can assure you there are two sides of this
story. The public narrative about the issue of alleged sexual assaults in the
military has been so skewed in the media and in Congress that it would be nice,
at some point, if there was more focus on balance and accuracy, and less on
saying and printing what sounds best in the court of public opinion/perception.
If you really are a skipper, don't you want to know the whole story?
I am not
military. I do believe that both sides of ANY debate should be heard and also
in print. It is the only way that people can make a fair and impartial
decision. So please,
DO put your side in print and allow people to judge for themselves. Why do you
believe this issue has been so "skewed" by Congress and the press?
What is your response to the allegations of advocacy groups like PROTECT OUR
DEFENDERS? Why do you feel that the Military Court of Appeals was wrong to
decide that the legal arguments of counsel representing the victim should be
heard in court?
Thank you.
(This last comment was rejected by the moderator)
Skipper.
I've been writing about these issues since the early 2000s, when the Air Force
Academy scandal occurred. There is not enough room in a comment section of one
story to address all of this. Feel free to type "rape" into the
search function of my blog and you will see many posts about the topic. Protect
Our Defenders is just what you say it is...an advocacy group. The ideals upon
which the entire American criminal justice system is based - presumption of
innocence, due process, fundamentally fair trials - have given way in the
military to the mantra (by politicians, military leaders, media stories,
advocacy groups) that every allegation must be true. If a case isn't prosecuted
the system has failed. If the prosecution results in an acquittal the system
has failed. If the sentence isn't harsh enough the system has failed. If
clemency has been granted the system has failed. That the statistics of
allegation vs. conviction show the system is "broken." This is the
only criminal justice system in American in which "jurors" come into
court having been inundated with these messages from their employers/superiors.
Few in the public discourse give voice to how legally incorrect military sexual
assault briefings about alcohol result in scores of military cases in which
complainants allege rape/sexual assault in scenarios that aren't rape or sexual
assault. SVCs in many cases are making arguments and taking actions to oppose
legally authorized evidence gathering, pretrial investigation, and trial
arguments. This is all the perfect storm for how innocent military members get
convicted, go to prison, and have their lives ruined. The goal in all of this
is not for a fair military justice system. The goal now is a one-sided system
that attempts to ensure the opposite - that the accused gets prosecuted,
convicted, harshly sentenced, gets no clemency and has increasing obstacles to
presenting a defense. So many of the voices being heard and published on this
issue are either not voices of those who are dealing first-hand with these
cases, or are not voices of those who can tell the other side of the story.
As I have said before regarding this
issue: It is a very sad
chapter in the history of the military justice system.
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 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
No comments:
Post a Comment