Back in August, in this post, I noted that the Army held an Article 32 preliminary hearing in a case involving allegations that now-retired Major General James J. Grazioplene committed rape on six occasions while on active duty in 1983-1989.
Those allegations were referred for trial and the Washington Post recently reported here that:
Retired Maj. Gen. James J. Grazioplene appeared Tuesday at Fort Belvoir, Va., for his first hearing following an Army general’s decision last month to send the case to a court-martial. Grazioplene, 68, is accused of repeatedly raping a young girl between 1983 and 1989.
The allegations have put the Army in highly unusual territory. The pending trial will mark one of only a few cases since World War II in which a general officer has been prosecuted in open court.
Grazioplene was a major serving at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas when the alleged rapes began, according to court documents.
He has not entered a plea.
Continuing court-martial jurisdiction over people who retire from a regular component of the armed forces – which isn’t retirement in the ordinary meaning of the term, but rather is merely a change in military status – has been a hot topic since the NMCCA’s opinion in United States v. Dinger, 76 M.J. 552, No. 201600108 (N.M. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 28, 2017) (discussed here).
The Grazioplene case also raises issues of the statute of limitations and due process for an accused brought to trial decades after an alleged offense. CAAF is considering similar concerns in the interlocutory Air Force case of United States v. Mangahas, No. 17-0434/AF (CAAFlog case page).