The Art. 32 hearing in the case of an alleged rape at the US Naval Academy involving three former USNA football players has concluded.  WaPo report here.

For all the litigation over grooming n the Hasan court-martial, USDB authorities made the deicison far easier.  In compliance with brig rules they forcibly shaved Hasan, who now sits on the military’s death row.  AP (via Dallas Morning News) report here.

9 Responses to “Military Justice News for Sep. 4, 2013”

  1. Mike says:

    As w all sex assault 32s, the results don’t matter.  This is going to trial. About time 32s were binding. No true bill, no trial

  2. k fischer says:

    As always, I enjoy reading the comments in these articles.  In particular, comments indicate that many are upset with the Defense counsel questioning the vic whether or not she was wearing a bra or panties, as if they were implying that what she was wearing, or lack thereof, justified her getting raped.  Truth is, they were asking because putting on a taking off a bra and panties takes a certain amount of coordination, which could impeach her testimony regarding her drinking.  And, I like Lt. Cmd. Tangs argument that a male does not have a duty to stop a drunk female who is the sexual aggressor.  What if the “force” that resulted in the penetration was provided by the female?  A “friend” of mine, as a pimple faced 16 year old, had a drunk 29 year old Italian woman try to get him to go skinny dipping with her in the hotel pool where he worked as a room service waiter/bellhop.  She called the front desk for some towels, he brought some towel up to her room, she invited him in, he knew she was wasted, she told him to lay down on the bed, and at no time did he do anything to cause his penis to penatrate her mouth.  So, did he commit forcible sodomy? 
    Anybody find it interesting that the Defense counsel called the vic’s civilian attorney?

  3. John O'Connor says:

    I see from the WaPo that the complainant in the Naval Academy case has filed suit in federal court in Maryland in an attempt to obtain a court order that the Academy Superintendent recuse himself from deciding how to dispose of the charges. 
    That should go far.

  4. MDE says:

    The USNA case is only going to get more interesting.  The Victim has filed suit to prevent the Superintendant from deciding the fate of the case.

  5. Gordon Smith says:

    According to this story,  Hasan’s pay will be stopped,  and he is to receive a dishonorable discharge from the army. How is this possible?  I thought officers receive dismissals,  not DD. The reported sentence is to be ”dismissed the service”.  Won’t that require the approval of the convening authority and the Secretary of the Army?  Has he been administratively discharged instead?

  6. Phil Cave says:

    His pay stops 14 days after the sentence was announced.
    UR correct not a DD.  Poor information cited.  It is a “Dismissal.”
    He’s not administratively discharged.  It will be some years before the dismissal is ordered executed (huuuuuuum, a punny day).

  7. Phil Cave says:

    Also, he’s still a major.  Enlisted persons are reduced 14 days after the sentence is announced, not so for officers, and the appellate pleadings will still refer to him as Major Hasan.
    It is true that he will be called Prisoner Hasan, and that he will be treated as a private.  I believe the current acceptable term is prisoner, not inmate.
    ” it will technically take some time until the paperwork is signed.”  True after the appellate litigation.
    I see it was the flack at Hood who put this out.

  8. Contract Lawyer says:

    Hasan was starting to look like a Billy Goat with that beard.  Made him look weird and creepy.  Looked like a terrorist.  Well, he is a terrorist, so he may as well look like one.  I am sure some would say:  “What does a terrorist look like?”  Look at Hasan.

  9. Contract Lawyer says:

    K – I have seen the defense you refer to attempted once.  The charge was forcible sodomy, but fraternization was also charged and consensual sodomy was a lesser included on the table.  Obviously the main goal was to fight the forcible sodomy charge.  The accused was a SFC with 17 years in service and the victim was a young private at the reception station pending a Chapter 11 discharge.  The defense to the fraternization and consensual sodomy was that he just stood there and the victim was the one committing the sodomy.  The panel did not buy that, but fortunately for the accused, they acquitted him of forcible sodomy and punishment was just a straight bust to E-1.  The civilian defense counsel was Gary Meyers.  Considering the reason for the court-martial was the forcible sodomy, it was a good defense win as the accused got no confinement nor punitive discharge.  I remember in the closing argument, Gary Meyers said:  “Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone.”