Yesterday CAAF granted review in this Army case.

No. 18-0201/AR. U.S. v. Anthony M. Bodoh. CCA 20150218. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, it is ordered that said petition is hereby granted on the following issue:


Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

SHARP is the Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention program.

The CCA’s opinion is available here but it does not address this issue.

10 Responses to “CAAF grants review of a prosecutor’s argument that referenced sexual assault response training”

  1. LABron says:

    What’s the bigger story here? The fact that ACCA didn’t even address the issue or that CAAF is keying in on SHARP related UCI?

  2. Vulture says:

    It’s also pretty noteworthy that the ACCA made a speedy trial ruling without once mentioning US v. Moreno then splitting the issue between cases “26 years apart.”  This might have been an otherwise fine ruling except for the statement “They had good cause to exclude the delay that resulted from the disestablishment of 1st Cavalry Division (Rear) (Provisional).”
    Total BS.  1st Cav and III Corps stand up and drop Rear-D and pluck people in and out of Rear-D like a game of Whack-a-Mole.  When a person is in confinement for 200+ days, what happens at Rear D isn’t of issue.  Then again I have seen a Rear-D Commander at Article 32 claim he didn’t know his METL.  But ACCA shouldn’t be in the business of excusing incompetence.

  3. DCGoneGalt says:

    Wait, so you’re telling me that SAPR/SHARP/SARC training is not the law?  Seems to me like SAPR/SHARP/SARC should be installed on every trial and appellate court to ensure the law and instructions change to reflect their training.  And placed in Congress and every military justice study and reform group.
    I mean, how can you make a valid decision at a trial without basing it on the well-known and indisputable fact that at least 98% of sexual assault allegations are 100% true?  How can you make a valid decision at a trial without basing it on the fact that all behavior that seems to support an allegation means the allegation is true and that all behavior that doesn’t seem to support an allegation is called counter-intuitive behavior and is also proof that the allegation is true?  How can you make a valid decision at a trial without basing it on the fact that a single drop of alcohol makes someone unable to consent even if their words and actions seem to say they consented?

  4. stewie says:

    Ugh, who is the chief of justice…how are you letting the trial counsel reference SHARP as a reason to convict?! (or for any reason at all?).

  5. Philip D. Cave says:

    SHARP helps get a conviction.  Not the first time the TC has argued sexual assault policies to convict.
    United States v. Garcia, sllip op. at 14.

  6. Nathan Freeburg says:

    True enough.  The SVP in Garcia would have left Hood for Europe before the Bodoh case but TCs she was involved in training were likely still around; so may be a connection.  Of course that particular SVP went on to sit on various committees tasked with proposing UCMJ reforms.  Small world.

  7. kf says:

    That is the beauty of SHARP: You can train jurors to obtain convictions.  You can train them that their intuition about how a victim usually acts is wrong, and by intuition, I think they are referring to their common sense and their understanding with the way things work in the world.  So, they effectively neutralize the jurors common sense and the Judge’s instructions about using common sense that could lead to an acquittal resulting from reasonable doubt based on what they have been taught are rape myths.
    Also, the messaging of SHARP goes into the courtroom as well.  How about “Start by Believing?”  How does that comport with the burden of proof if the jury is instructed that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.  Shouldn’t a juror start by believing that he is not guilty? 
    What the SVP should do is put the posts SHARP coordinator on the stand as a counterintuitive behavior expert since they have completed the 60 hours of training required to stop sexual assault in the military.  She could wear a pink crocheted hat and a #timesup/metoo shirt.  That would really round out the lack of prejudice.
    But seriously, I’m interested in seeing what the prosecutor actually said.

  8. DCGoneGalt says:

    Someone should put the SHARP logo flying across the sky with “I Want to Believe” on a t-shirt using the X-Files photo and font.
    I’d buy that for a dollar.

  9. Vulture says:

    I was thinking about the reference to siren songs for reform in military justice.  Also there is the Sword of Demosthenes and from time to time courts reference the woe-begotten Sysiphus in his perpetual labor.  Latin is so much the language of the law but it is really the Greeks we have to revere.  
    Consider Lysistrata: the story of women’s efforts to end the Pelopunnesian war at the denial of sex to their men.  It’s supposed to be a comedy is it not?  Oh but for the serious Gillibrand we have a tragedy.  We have taken this Odyssey out of time, to be dashed on the sharp rocks, to protect the virtue of the Stygian virgins.   And peace and righteousness flow like mead from Olympus.
    You are quite the oracle Senator.  Now excuse me while I tear my eyes out.

  10. Kf says:

    I would be inclined to go with an enlisted panel if the conviction is reversed and remanded for a retrial.  I know he was convicted by an Officer panel back in 2015, but the times, they are a’changin’.  I don’t think I would go M.J. alone or with an Officer panel, since neither are going to look favorably on a Soldier who tag teamed another Soldier’s wife, even if it was consensual.  Better to go with an enlisted panel who is more likely to look out for that young private whose testimony indicates he was taken advantage of by the complaining witness, then falsely accused of a crime he did not commit.  Most Officers have a difficult time comprehending the possibility of that level of crazy.  
    If what the appellant testified to was true, then he and his buddy wouldn’t the first guys who she was spit roasted by.  I’d be looking for some 412 evidence because I would suspect that she testified words to the effect of “I looooove my husband.  I would never cheat on him…….”. The question is why did she make this up?  What kind of previous mental health issues with her are known and discoverable? I wonder how her relationship with her husband is now, three years later…..