Google

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

A Case Too Weak For a Court-martial.


Cadet Alexander Stevens is a cadet at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (USCGA). He is accused of breaking into the room of a female cadet of lower rank in Chase Hall and sexually abusing her.
The Coast Guard prosecutor, Lt. Tyler McGill, has alleged that Cadet Stevens  was on a mission for sexual gratification that September night. The room Stevens entered was about 300 feet from his girlfriend's room.
"Cadet Stevens did not walk into the room right next door," McGill said.
Lt. John Cole, Cadet Stevens' Assigned Military Defense Counsel, said the government didn't prove sexual intent. He claims Stevens was drunk at the time and made a mental mistake.
"Just because he accidentally touched the wrong cadet's leg doesn't mean he should go to court martial," Cole said.
Cole argued that Stevens should face administrative punishment, which can include expulsion. Administrative punishment is not criminal in nature. Non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is the lowest form of criminal proceeding available to the military. Above NJP there are three levels of courts-martial. They are a Summary, a Special and a General Court-matial. They differ in the maximum amount of punishment they can award to a convicted member. A court martial is a Federal Criminal Trial and can lead to prison time if the person is convicted.
The Article 32 pretrial investigation is similar to a civilian grand jury. It is used to determine wheteher there is enough evidence to refer the case to a court-martial.
 A hearing in the form of an Article 32 Investigation was held  Wednesday April 2nd at the Coast Guard Academy. The Article 32 Investigating Officer (IO) has not yet made a recommendation. The IO could recommend that the case be dismissed, dealt with administratively or referred for trial by court-martial.
 Usually the accused usually does not testify at an Article 32 Hearing.
Most smart Defense Counsels do not let their clients testify at an Article 32 Hearing. They use that opportunity to discover the Government's case. They get a chance to see how much evidence the Government has and how strong it is.
Cadet Stevens, who is accused of abusive sexual contact, housebreaking and unlawful entry, did not testify.

The Testimony was weak.
The female complaining witness testified that a man entered her room in the middle of the night, touched her on her thigh and moved his hand up her leg before she screamed and kicked him.
"I remember someone fumbling with my blanket that was on top of me and touching my leg," she said, describing skin-to-skin contact and the swirling motion of a hand moving up her leg. "I kicked my legs and I screamed."
The man either fell or jumped off her bed and fled. She says she chased him and located a friend.
"I kept telling him (the friend) that's not right," she said, noting that she was shaking and crying.
The cadet said she found it hard to sleep and concentrate after the encounter, and her grades suffered.
"I think he should be kicked out of the Coast Guard. I think he should be a registered sex offender, and I think he should go to jail," she said.
Cadet Stevens' explanation Is credible and exculpatory.
Stevens said in an interview that he went into the fellow cadet's room and touched her with his hand, said Eric Gempp, a special agent with the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS). Stevens said he was startled when the cadet said, "Hey!" He quickly left the room, Stevens told investigators.
Stevens said he went into the room by mistake, believing it was his girlfriend's room, Gempp testified.
Defense Counsel was able to get the accused's statements into the record without him taking the witness stand.
Chief Robert Cain testified that Stevens voluntarily came to him and told him during a night of drinking he got into an argument with his girlfriend. Cain said Stevens told him after returning to his room that he decided to apologize and went to what he thought was his girlfriend's room, tapped her on the leg and realized he was in the wrong room.
Another cadet testified that classmates often go into the wrong rooms, but said the mistake typically involves going into a room one or two doors away.
The only cadet ever court-martialed at the academy, Webster Smith, was tried in 2006 at a General Court-martial and convicted on extortion, sodomy and indecent assault charges.

(The Webster Smith Case was appealed all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. It is fully documented in a book entitled "Conduct Unbecoming An Officer and a Lady" available on Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021 )
The Article 32 investigating officer (IO) in this case could recommend that the alleged offenses be dismissed, dealt with administratively, or referred for trial by court-martial.

Anonymous said...QUOTE:
This is not a case of sexual assault; the evidence presented by the government failed to prove anything more than the fact that there is a systemic problem of alcohol abuse and confusion over dorm room locations running rampant at the USCGA. Multiple witnesses confirmed the events of the night as purported by Cadet Stevens. Moreover, they confirmed that it is a too-frequent occurrence for over-intoxicated cadets to return to Chase Hall and accidentally walk into the wrong room. The alleged victim's own roommate testified to that fact without reservation.

Doors have locks, the roommate also confirmed, but cadets are not permitted keys; only the XO has a master key to unlock doors. The only way a cadet could secure his/her room is when all occupants are safely inside. This is surely a contributor to issues of unspeakable theft, vandalism and abuse current and former cadets can tell.

The Article 32 Hearing was a manufactured event architected by someone with an agenda that goes beyond the unfortunate incident that occurred in the wee hours of September 15. Yes, Cadet Stevens was drunk and made a horrible mistake. But it was not assault and any reasonable person who looks at all of the evidence will quickly come to this conclusion. To reach any other decision is an overt decision to falsely accuse - and ruin - the character and integrity of the very same honor all cadets represent.

Admiral Stosz has issues within her ranks of leadership, character and courage; she needs to look at the culture of Chase Hall and question why cadets are abusing alcohol and questioning if the restrictive weekday rigor and lax weekend liberty -- call it Feast or Famine -- is modeling the lifestyle and behaviors that mold tomorrow's Coast Guard leaders. These are far greater issues than addressing Cadet Steven's long overdue Mast for drunkenly walking into another's room in error.

I, for one, did not lose the irony of the drawn-out investigation culminating with a hearing that began with the start of the Coast Guard's Sexual Prevention and Awareness Month. This is showmanship at the taxpayer's expense, folks, and nothing more.UNQUOTE.

Bonfire symbolizes sex assault fight

PrintAir Force Academy cadets and leaders held an April 17 bonfire to mark Sexual Assault Awareness Month.
The event held on the terrazzo in the cadet area on campus featured speeches from the school’s superintendent, Lt. Gen. Michelle Johnson, and the dean, Brig. Gen. Andy Armacost.
The bonfire was a symbol for “Take Back the Night” a ritual that began in California that’s intended to raise awareness of violence and sex crimes.
“The Air Force Academy, home to 4000 cadets and several thousand military and civilian employees, fosters a safe environment with a zero tolerance policy for sexual misconduct,” the academy said in a news release.
“A bonfire will be lit by General Johnson as the cadet wing joins together to affirm their motto of maintaining a ‘Culture of Respect,’ and take back the night,” the academy said.
  (by Tom Roeder, April 22, 2014) 

THIS JUST IN:

Coast Guard cadet won't be court-martialed



NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) 12 June 2014 — A U.S. Coast Guard Academy cadet accused of entering a classmate's room and touching her leg will not face a court martial, the academy said Thursday.
Coast Guard Academy Superintendent, Rear Adm. Sandra Stosz, agreed with the recommendations of an Article 32 Investigating Officer that reasonable grounds did not exist to support the charge of abusive sexual contact against cadet Alexander Stevens. Rear Adm. Sandra Stosz, also agreed with a recommendation to impose nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on Cadet Stevens for unlawfully entering a cadet barracks room while drunk and touching another cadet on the leg, Coast Guard officials said.
The academy did not disclose details of the punishment, citing Stevens' privacy rights. Nonjudicial punishment may include a reprimand, arrest in quarters for up to 30 days, pay forfeiture or expulsion from the academy.
"The Academy has remained committed to providing all needed support to the victim, ensuring a full and fair proceeding in compliance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and holding those who commit misconduct accountable for their actions," said Capt. James McCauley, the Commandant of Cadets at the U S Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT..
In September 2013, Stevens said, he went into the fellow cadet's room by mistake, believing it was his girlfriend's room, an investigator testified.
He was drunk at the time and made a mental mistake, Lt. John Cole, who represented Stevens, said during the Article 32 Pre-trial investigation at the Academy in April 2014.
The female cadet classmate testified that a man entered her room in the middle of the night, touched her on her thigh and moved his hand up her leg before she screamed and kicked him. The cadet said she found it hard to sleep and concentrate after the encounter, and her grades suffered.
A Government appointed prosecutor, LT Tyler McGill, at the Article 32 Investigation argued that Stevens was on a mission for sexual gratification. The room Stevens went into was about 300 feet from his girlfriend's room, Lt. Tyler McGill said, and noted that the classmate was lower in rank.
"Cadet Stevens did not walk into the room right next door," McGill said.
But the government failed to prove sexual intent, Cole argued.
"Just because he accidentally touched the wrong cadet's leg doesn't mean he should go to court martial," Cole said.
Stevens did not testify.
A conviction in a court martial can lead to prison time.
The only cadet ever court-martialed at the academy, Webster Smith, was tried in 2006 and convicted on extortion, sodomy and indecent assault charges.
(By John Christoffersen, AP)

Labels:

17 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

She is just trying to get extra treatment in a very difficult place for any one to gain the upper hand. Wow, I guess no more parties, Mardi Gras, ridding NY subway, buses at rush hour as I'm bound to bump into someone and sometimes it's their #$%$ or bellies or legs and sometimes oversized boobs. Lets get unserious on this type of accidental touching. Shocked it made the news unless someone is looking to bash the Academy... jealous are you!
Signed, Disgusted

1:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Back when I was in college there was no such thing as a co-ed dorm. The military is just asking for trouble but seems shocked when this stuff happens..
Signed,
Derek Smalls

1:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Having graduated from that Academy myself, I'm almost embarrased that such a trivial event as a guy getting drunk, thinking he's in his girlfriend's room, putting a hand on her leg, being yelled at, quickly removing his hand, and quickly leaving the room is a call for JAIL time? Court martial? Sexual Predator list? C'mon, there was no intent here. No "sexual" contact. No "housebreaking" (as I'm sure the door was not locked.) Does this guy have a record of ever doing anything like that before? Does this girl have a record of being overly sensitive about herself? When I was there this is the kind of thing that the Corps would handle without ever involving the authorities. Now I guess it's like everywhere else.
Signed,
HansenJG

1:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HansenJG, I am inclined to agree with you but we don't know all of the facts. I did note that she said her grades suffered after the incident. Was she about to be dismissed from the Academy for grades and then brought this up as a way to continue her education on the taxpayer's dime?
Signed,
Troy

1:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The woman is definitely not officer material as she won't hold up in a war front or during a battle... thrown into the mist of a battle or fight, she would be complaining someone touch her precious body. Now if he grab some titty or fondle her #$%$ or box, then that would be not acceptable. She just made the ultimate mistake in the military and this will follow her every place she goes and NO ONE will respect her.

1:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The woman is definitely not officer material as she won't hold up in a war front or during a battle... thrown into the mist of a battle or fight, she would be complaining someone touch her precious body. Now if he grab some titty or fondle her #$%$ or box, then that would be not acceptable. She just made the ultimate mistake in the military and this will follow her every place she goes and NO ONE will respect her.
Signed,
Disgusted

1:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll bet you would change your tune if it were a gay soldier who came into your room and touched YOUR leg... I mean really, how do you expect to hold up in battle if you can't handle a man coming into your room and touching your leg in a sexual fashion.
Signed,
Star Spangled

1:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She sounds like she is extremely sensitive and is not good with startling situations considering she is not sleeping and her grades are suffering. The military or any high stress and or potentially dangerous job is really not the place for her. I do see a problem with the guy not sticking around, apologizing and explaining the error at the time it happened.
Signed,
M

1:43 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His story adds up...hers sounds more emotionally driven. Was it traumatic? I'm sure. Was he at fault for being drunk and disorderly? Of course. Does a brush of the hand on a thigh constitute serious sexual assault? No...a mistake he needs to rectify, but shes not a much a victim as she thinks she is. If there was no malicious intent and no real harm done, then where is the major crime?
Signed,
Doug

1:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I miss the good old days, where she'd have a guy friend beat some sense into this guy and the issue would be resolved. Now everything has to be a sensational court drama. The new USSA - any violation and off to the goolag. We have more people incarcerated in this country than any other civilized country in the world. Won't be long before we start throwing people in jail for not having health insurance(IRS aka SS is involved).
Signed,
Scooter

1:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Girls, guys--they are all equal now. If a guy had been in this girl's place, what would he have done? He'd kick the #$%$ out of the offender; so this gal should have done the same thing.
Signed,
Jonathan

1:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No locks on the doors??
Signed,
Peter

1:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh please, grow up. What is she, ten? A REAL woman would just demand he takes his hand off of her and if he doesn't comply, slap him. It's worked for centuries. And what evidence is there? She could be making up the whole thing. I'm a bit tired of people making accusations for which there is no proof. It's too easy.
Signed,
Mike

1:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In mixed dorms, with the history of abuse in the academy, don't these people have locks on their doors? Is it some kind of statement of female independence not to lock door at least at night?
This situation is a bit fuzzy and in a world now where any even anonymous allegation is given major notice, how much truth is there here. On either side.
Signed,
johnb

1:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So a person has to let the courts take care of something that should have been dealt with on the spot. I don't think this attitude works for the decisiveness required of future officers.
Signed,
Concerned Citizen

1:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The woman is definitely not officer material as she won't hold up in a war front or during a battle... thrown into the mist of a battle or fight, she would be complaining someone touch her precious body. Now if he grab some titty or fondle her #$%$ or box, then that would be not acceptable. She just made the ultimate mistake in the military and this will follow her every place she goes and NO ONE will respect her.
Signed,
Disgusted

1:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is not a case of sexual assault; the evidence presented by the government failed to prove anything more than the fact that there is a systemic problem of alcohol abuse and confusion over dorm room locations running rampant at the USCGA. Multiple witnesses confirmed the events of the night as purported by Cadet Stevens. Moreover, they confirmed that it is a too-frequent occurrence for over-intoxicated cadets to return to Chase Hall and accidentally walk into the wrong room. The alleged victim's own roommate testified to that fact without reservation.

Doors have locks, the roommate also confirmed, but cadets are not permitted keys; only the XO has a master key to unlock doors. The only way a cadet could secure his/her room is when all occupants are safely inside. This is surely a contributor to issues of unspeakable theft, vandalism and abuse current and former cadets can tell.

The Article 32 Hearing was a manufactured event architected by someone with an agenda that goes beyond the unfortunate incident that occurred in the wee hours of September 15. Yes, Cadet Stevens was drunk and made a horrible mistake. But it was not assault and any reasonable person who looks at all of the evidence will quickly come to this conclusion. To reach any other decision is an overt decision to falsely accuse - and ruin - the character and integrity of the very same honor all cadets represent.

Admiral Stosz has issues within her ranks of leadership, character and courage; she needs to look at the culture of Chase Hall and question why cadets are abusing alcohol and questioning if the restrictive weekday rigor and lax weekend liberty -- call it Feast or Famine -- is modeling the lifestyle and behaviors that mold tomorrow's Coast Guard leaders. These are far greater issues than addressing Cadet Steven's long overdue Mast for drunkenly walking into another's room in error.

I, for one, did not lose the irony of the drawn-out investigation culminating with a hearing that began with the start of the Coast Guard's Sexual Prevention and Awareness Month. This is showmanship at the taxpayer's expense, folks, and nothing more.

5:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home