Postby Lord Hosk » 01 Sep 2014, 20:16
The short answer I cant give as I dont know what the full standards of evidence are. I do they follow the rules laid forth by the state bar associations and every lawyer and the judge have all passed the bar in at least one state. There is a judge a 'jury' consisting of at least 3(in this case 5) officers a trial attorney (prosecutor) and a defense attorney. I have never been at a civilian trial but it seemed very similar to what you see on TV, other than everyone in the room being in full dress uniforms.
I was called as a witness in both cases, I was asked very similar questions by the trial attorney and then asked very similar questions by the defense attorneys. When did it happen, did I see them drinking, what was the demeanor before hand, what was their demeanor after, how long were they in the room, did I hear any struggles, was I concerned for their safety. Her attorney also asked me questions about why I didn't do more to guarantee the safety of my fellow soldier which I still don't feel I failed in anyway.
Yes, from my understanding the young woman after being made fun of for her choice in men, changed her story to rape, and then reported the rape. After hearing that he was accused of rape on the grounds that she was drunk, he said "well then she raped me too" and filed charges. There were independent investigations conducted in each case by different investigators. Both were confined to quarters for the three-four weeks of investigation. The trials had the same judge, different prosecutors different defense different jury, almost all the same witnesses.
He had just a military lawyer and was found guilty basically on the grounds that she consumed alcohol beyond what considered to be a impairing level and could not legally give consent no matter what she said at the time. His trial took two days and I was there for both.
Her trial started a week later, she retained a civilian lawyer in addition to her military lawyer. Her trial lasted four days I was there for the first second and fourth day. Her civilian attorney was very aggressive and was warned by the judge on several occasions. In the end she was convicted on the same grounds he had consumed alcohol beyond what is considered to be a impairing level so he could not have given his consent.
Both were sentenced to time served plus the other than honorable discharge.
I think it was a legal cluster, but also a example of how the legal system fails. From my perspective the charges were brought in her case out of shame from peer pressure and in his case anger, not out of any real feelings that they had been taken advantage of sexually in either case.
Its possible that something came up in the third day of her trial that I didnt hear, but I didnt hear anything in the rumor mill that was unexpected. These weren't closed proceedings although you did have to get permission from the judge, a Lt Col., but to me that seemed more a formality, before they started the session anyone who wasnt a witness for that day had to talk to the judge, the few people who did were all allowed to stay. I was on the witness list for both days for his trial and for day one and two of hers, I approached the judge on the fourth day and before even saying anything he said "yeah you are fine"
Beware Bering Crystal Bears, Bearing Crystals. (Especially if the crystals they are bearing are, themselves, Bering Crystal Bears.) -Old, Stupid Proverb
[–]Graham_LRR
You hear that Khoo? We're almost better than the comic!