According to this public notice, the next meeting of the Response Systems to Adult Sexual Assault Crimes Panel will occur on May 5-6, 2014, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. each day, at The George Washington University Law School Faculty Conference Center, 5th floor, 716 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20052.

The agenda is:

May 5, 2014
• 8:30 a.m.–8:35 a.m. Comments from the Panel Chair
• 8:35 a.m.–9:30 a.m. DoD SAPRO Update Major General Jeffrey J. Snow Director, DoD SAPRO
• 9:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Subcommittee Report to Panel and Panel Deliberations
• 12:30 p.m.–1:00 p.m. Lunch
• 1:00 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Subcommittee Report to Panel and Panel Deliberations
• 4:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Public Comment

May 6, 2014
• 8:30 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Subcommittee Report to Panel and Panel Deliberations
• 12:00 p.m.–12:30 p.m. Lunch
• 12:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Panel Deliberations
• 4:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Public Comment*

* Public comment may occur earlier in the day if Panel deliberations conclude prior to 4:30 p.m. It is anticipated that the subcommittees will report to the Panel in the following order: Comparative Systems Subcommittee; Victim Services Subcommittee; Role of the Commander Subcommittee. However, the order of the subcommittee reports may change.

One Response to “The next meeting of the Response Systems Panel will occur on May 5-6 at The George Washington University Law School”

  1. k fischer says:

    Zach,
     
    I wonder if they will discuss this training video of CSM Guerra
     
    @ 3:45-4:07.
    “As a Command Sergeant Major, I completely understand…taking care of the organization as a whole is the most important process, even if it means holding someone accountability for their actions whether or not there’s a sexual assault victim, I think that’s very important for all organizations to understand.”
     
    @4:07-4:50.
    “The advice I would give to victims is: report it and then trust the process.  What CID can investigate are something entirely different, and while they might not be able to get a perpetrator on sexual assault for instance, rape or attempted rape, what they can get them on is something else, and because we can add charges that are different than what the civilian court can hold them accountable for as far as standards of conduct we expect in our profession.  So, I think the Army does a very good job from my experience.”
     
    Anybody else horrified by a woman who holds the most senior enlisted rank in the Army who participated in the RSP in November 2013 saying that someone should be held accountable for their actions whether or not there is a victim?  So, just because I can’t get a Soldier on attempted rape charges, we can throw a bunch of stuff on paper and see what sticks. 
     
    So, I had a court-martial this week where I was arguing that a record had been destroyed, which could have proven my client’s innocence.  It comes out during testimony to the surprise of all the attorneys at trial that there were additional records that some other office had, so during a break the lead TC asks me if I would object to a person being a witness if she went and got the other records.  I told him I certainly wouldn’t object if a record existed to prove my client’s innocence.  So, the assistant TC pipes up and says, “Don’t do it.  What if it hurts our case?”  I about lost my everloving mind and said to her, “Oh, so if there is a record that proves my client innocent, then you would prefer that nobody knows about it, so an innocent man gets convicted?????”  To her credit, she immediately changed her position and said, “Yeah, you should definitely tell her to bring all the records down here.” And the record completely destroyed the argument that I was making and was good for the Government!  I told the lead TC, for whom I have a deep respect, that she is going to make a great SVP.  Client was partially acquitted, but got convicted of a false statement, and got a reprimand given from the bench without deliberation after sentencing arguments.