Retired Army Major General James J. Grazioplene – who last year was charged with committing rape on six occasions while on active duty in 1983-1989, but whose case was dismissed in the wake of CAAF’s decision in Mangahas – now faces prosecution in Virgina, according to this Army Times report:

Retired Maj. Gen. James Grazioplene faces three charges of incest and three charges of rape related to allegations of rape of a minor dating back to his time in service over the course of years in various locations.

Grazioplene now lives in Gainesville, Virginia. He faces charges lodged against him out of Prince William County Circuit Court.

The report notes:

Virginia does not have a statute of limitations on rape cases.

According to the county court records, Grazioplene is being charged with rape and incest after the case was heard by a grand jury earlier this month. The document lists the offense date as Aug. 1, 1987.

At the time, he and his family lived in Woodbridge, Virginia, which is in Prince William County.

9 Responses to “Commonwealth of Virginia indicts MG Grazioplene”

  1. Former DC says:

    Interesting. Virginia has a statute that prohibits a state prosecution if the same offense was charged by the Federal Government. I wonder how the Commonwealth’s Attorney intends to get around that bar?

  2. Some Army Guy says:

    Interesting. Virginia has a statute that prohibits a state prosecution if the same offense was charged by the Federal Government. I wonder how the Commonwealth’s Attorney intends to get around that bar?

    “For purposes of this section, a prosecution under a federal statute shall be deemed to be commenced once jeopardy has attached.”

  3. Barry McCockiner says:

    This is going to be a tough prosecution.  30-year-old evidence, memories, etc.?  Seems like a waste of resources.

  4. Fisch says:

    You know, I don’t think memories fade regarding physical or sexual abuse. And, putting a child rapist behind bars is never a waste of resources.
    However, after reading this article regarding his Article 32 hearing, I am inclined to agree with you on this case.  The article reports that the defense alleges that the accuser told someone that the sexual abuse stopped when she began menstruating at 13 and that no sexual abuse occurred in Woodbridge, VA.  Yet, she testified that it kept going until she turned 18 and that it occurred in Woodbridge.  If there is a halfway decent motive to fabricate, then I don’t foresee a conviction occurring in this case. Is it possible that she is nuts because she was sexual abused by him?  Yes.  But, it is also possible that she is nuts and playing the vic for whatever reason.  It sounds like it is going to be difficult to get a conviction in this case, but at least the attorney for the Commonwealth won’t have to deal with fallout like the Brock Turner case and the most recent one from Baylor.
    Hopefully, the attorney for the Commonwealth has evidence of guilty more than what has been reported.

  5. Nathan Freeburg says:

    Well the obvious motive to fabricate would be that he could only be convicted if the abuse took place in Woodbridge, VA.  I.E. the pre-age 13 allegations could be true and the post-13 allegations could be false in order to get a conviction (the primary question for this line of defense being when the CW knew that post-age-13 allegations were necessary).

  6. Tami a/k/a Princess Leia says:

    I don’t think jeopardy attached.  But if the defense can paint a picture of the jury dealing with a Blasey-Ford-like complainant, it only takes one person to hang a jury.

  7. Concerned Defender says:

    This is an indictment on the limitless SOL for such an offense, rather than the accused.  There is something fundamentally wrong with someone 3 decades later making such an accusation.  Look, nobody supports or condones rape… but come on.  If a person were 10 or 15 and raped, a report should be timely.  Maybe within a year after reaching adulthood.  Not decades later.  This instead allows that person to not report at 18.  Or 22.  Or 28.  Or 35.  Or 40…..   
    The absurdity of this is a situation of prosecuting a 75 year old for a verbal accusation from when he was in his 40s… how can anyone reasonably mount a defense that doesn’t necessarily require waiving the 5th Amendment to testify.  Seems to violate the Constitution on more than 1 issue and probably 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments, among others. 
    There are reasons to encourage PROMPT reporting.  Timely investigation, gathering fresh evidence, forensics, witnesses, memories, exculpatory information like witnesses, alibi, etc.  Timely prosecution allows the government a chance to punish a person, and protect society.   What is served now by a prosecution 30 or 40 years later???  Seems more like vindictive revenge than justice.  
    All of these “well 5 lifetimes ago he did XYZ” allegations are totally nonsensical.  Under no circumstances should such cases come forward, absent new developments in forensics, perhaps a corroborated volunutary confession, etc.  
    I’d say a victim of a sex assault (if he/she knows the perp) must report with 90 days and can extend the option to prosecute out to maybe a few years max, unless there’s extenuating circumstances (captive, kidnapped, minor, etc.).  Then must report promptly upon repatriation or age of adulthood.  I would allow exceptions to extend the SOL for technology to catch up for forensics purposes, for example, to positively ID an unknown assailant.  
    However I’m vehemently these legacy old accusations, which seem more like fabrications or spite than anything. 
    Further, I’m in favor of reforms to sex assault accusations.  A false accusation resulting in an acquittal has a mandatory prosecution with the SAME criminal penalties as the original accused faced. 

  8. Interested Onlooker says:

    Whoa, Nellie!  Concerned Defender, how do you propose to discern the difference between a false accusation resulting in acquittal, and a prosecution of a legitimate accusation that doesn’t quite get the job done, also resulting in acquittal?  Surely you can’t be suggesting that an acquittal is proof of a false accusation…

  9. Fisch says:

    I don’t know about CD, but if an accused takes the stand and testifies under oath facts that would indicate that the complaining witness is falsely accusing him, then shouldn’t she, if we are going to treat both genders equally, at least be investigated for a false swearing? #believehim
    And when the SVC tells her to not make any further statements, then they should title her because only guilty invoke the 5th because they have something to hide, i.e. Their guilt, amiright?
    Then, at that point, charges should be preferred because she is titled or she should at least be kicked out of the military because the recidivism rate for false accusers is really high.
    But after reading the Post’s story, if all that is true, then it sounds pretty bad.