Coast Guard rape conviction overturned after court’s scathing attack on women-packed jury

[txradioguy]

The nation’s highest military court has thrown out the 2012 rape conviction of a Coast Guard enlisted man because admirals and prosecutors packed the seven-member jury with five women, four of whom held jobs as advocates for victims of sexual assault.

In a 5-0 ruling that could change how the military conducts sex abuse trials, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces unleashed caustic criticism of all involved.

From the Coast Guard commandant down to an appellate court to the original trial judge, the high court said all contributed to a “stain on the military justice system.” The military has been under intense pressure to wipe out sexual harassment and assault, the five civilian judges noted.

The opinion, delivered by Judge Margaret A. Ryan, said the four admirals who played a role in assembling the officer and enlisted jury pool produced an illegal “gender-based court stacking.” She suggested that the admirals’ role amounted to unlawful command influence, which military law analysts see as the enemy of fair trials for service members.

The court ruling said the trial judge “failed to conduct even a rudimentary investigation” into defense attorneys’ complaints of an unfair jury.

It also said the Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals failed in its duty to protect against unlawful command influence as it “rationalized the error away as a benign effort to seek inclusiveness.”

The high court judges harshly criticized all involved, implying that their goal was to win a conviction.

“The salient facts paint a clear picture of court stacking based on gender in an atmosphere of external pressure to achieve specific results in sexual assault cases,” the ruling read. “Against that backdrop, purposefully selecting a panel that is seventy percent female, most of whom are victim advocates, from a roster of officers that was only twenty percent female and a pool of enlisted that was only thirteen percent female, smacks of a panel that was ‘hand-picked’ by or for the Government.”

The judges used the word “absurdity” in their assessment of assembling a jury pool of 70 percent women based on inclusiveness. “As a matter of common sense, 70 percent is not statistically or otherwise ‘representative,’” their ruling read.

Ten jurors were selected, and seven of them were women. Of those jurors, five women and two men heard evidence, deliberated and rendered a verdict. Of those five women, four were assigned as advocates for victims of sexual misconduct.

The judges threw out the court-martial convictions of Boatswain’s Mate 2nd Class John C. Riesbeck “with prejudice,” meaning the Coast Guard may not retry him.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/28/women-packed-court-gets-coast-guard-rape-convictio/?utm_source=FB-ARB&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=TWT_Chacka_D:180207_CP:Breaking%20News%202018_AF:LPP&utm_content=144893041&utm_term=144893041

[Cyber Liberty]

How disappointing.  Washington Times made their blocking of the site from those running ad blockers mandatory, so I can't read their stories unless I whitelist them.  Washington Times were so obnoxious about ads they were the inspiration for me getting AdBlock.

[Restored]

Smart idea. If you'll notice from the recent accounts of abuse, women consider "yelling" and "insults" to be abuse but only when men do them. If a woman threatens or yells at or insults a man, they don't consider that to be abuse.
I hear women threaten to abuse their spouses all the time, even physical abuse. Maybe it is said in a joking manner but a man would never joke like that. People would freak out.

[txradioguy]

Smart idea. If you'll notice from the recent accounts of abuse, women consider "yelling" and "insults" to be abuse but only when men do them. If a woman threatens or yells at or insults a man, they don't consider that to be abuse.
I hear women threaten to abuse their spouses all the time, even physical abuse. Maybe it is said in a joking manner but a man would never joke like that. People would freak out.

This is also a rebuke to the Gillibrand types that have the facts don't matter if they're accused they're guilty mentality when it comes to allegations of sexual assault in the military...and the officers that accommodate this lynch mob mentality.

[driftdiver]

This is also a rebuke to the Gillibrand types that have the facts don't matter if they're accused they're guilty mentality when it comes to allegations of sexual assault in the military...and the officers that accommodate this lynch mob mentality.

I lost all respect for military officers the day I was ordered to apologize to the the Air Force member who had been making obscene phone calls to my wife for several months.

[txradioguy]

I lost all respect for military officers the day I was ordered to apologize to the the Air Force member who had been making obscene phone calls to my wife for several months.

I couldn't have done it.  I'd have taken whatever kind of UCMJ they'd have tossed at me for that one.

[Cyber Liberty]

This is also a rebuke to the Gillibrand types that have the facts don't matter if they're accused they're guilty mentality when it comes to allegations of sexual assault in the military...and the officers that accommodate this lynch mob mentality.

The "Gillibrand types" that assume male guilt are everywhere.  A once prolific poster here who recently left was merciless about accusing Roy Moore of being a Pedophile during that election, offering no evidence, just allegations.  She wasn't alone.

[driftdiver]

I couldn't have done it.  I'd have taken whatever kind of UCMJ they'd have tossed at me for that one.

I was about a month from terminal leave.  I said it in front of the entire shop (inside Cheyenne Mountain) and said I was glad it wasn't him or I would have gutted him and left him to bleed on the side of the mountain.

Others there knew he was doing it.    i thought about going to the 1sgt but have seen that go badly for others.

[driftdiver]

The "Gillibrand types" that assume male guilt are everywhere.  A once prolific poster here who recently left was merciless about accusing Roy Moore of being a Pedophile during that election, offering no evidence, just allegations.  She wasn't alone.

@Cyber Liberty
Who left? 

The evidence at the start looked pretty damning against him.  Then not so much.   

[Restored]

The "Gillibrand types" that assume male guilt are everywhere.  A once prolific poster here who recently left was merciless about accusing Roy Moore of being a Pedophile during that election, offering no evidence, just allegations.  She wasn't alone.

That's called "trolling".

[Frank Cannon]

Can you sue the military for wrongful imprisonment like in a civilian court?

[txradioguy]

Can you sue the military for wrongful imprisonment like in a civilian court?

Sadly not that I'm aware of.  Anything you'd be able to sue the military for would involve reinstatement of your rank...change in type of discharge and a restoration of your pay and benefits.

[driftdiver]

Sadly not that I'm aware of.  Anything you'd be able to sue the military for would involve reinstatement of your rank...change in type of discharge and a restoration of your pay and benefits.

The officers who set this up should be run out of town.

Once again, honor and integrity seems to have left our institutions.

[txradioguy]

The officers who set this up should be run out of town.

Once again, honor and integrity seems to have left our institutions.

@driftdiver he won't. The Admiral who had the final say on all of this and allowed it to go to trial  over the recommendation of the Article 32 Officer is the Commandant of the CG.

The same guy who said he would ignore Trump's ban on transgenders in the military.

[Fishrrman]

CyberLiberty wrote:
"How disappointing.  Washington Times made their blocking of the site from those running ad blockers mandatory, so I can't read their stories unless I whitelist them.  Washington Times were so obnoxious about ads they were the inspiration for me getting AdBlock."

I, too, was frustrated by the new "ad block policy" at the Washington Times.
BUT... I discovered a way to DEFEAT it.

Here's what you need to do.

I'm in the minority here because I use only Macintosh.
But there's no reason this won't work on the Windows side of things as well.
You WILL need to know how to manipulate things and set preferences in your browser of choice.

First, do this:
You will have to TURN OFF your adblocking for the WT site, temporarily.
Put up with the ads for the moment.

Then, do this:
1. Go to the WT home page
2. Up top, there are several drop-down categories, such as "news", "opinion", etc.
3. For an example, choose "news/national":
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/national
4. Let the page load, then bookmark it.
5. Do this for whatever pages you regularly access.
6. For example, I also bookmarked the "opinion main" page:
"https://www.washingtontimes.com/opinion/"

Once you have the pages bookmarked, I suggest you organize them into their own bookmark folder, for easy access.

Once that is done -- RE-enable your adblocker for the WT site.

Now, do this:
You will have to set up the browser you're using so that you can disable "javascript".
NOT "java", but "javascript" (these are two different things, at least on the Mac).
You -may- be able to set up your browser so that javascript is disabled ONLY on the Washingtontimes.com site ... and not others. So that it works "automatically".
Or.. you might just have to concoct a way to open your browser's preferences, disable javascript, read your fill at the WT site, and then RE-enable javascript (so it will work with other sites).

On the Mac, for Safari, you can do it this way:
With Safari open, type "command-," (comma). This opens Safari preferences.
Click "security".
UNCHECK "Enable JavaScript" if it's enabled.
Close System Preferences.
Now, open one of the saved Washington Times bookmarks (this trick WILL NOT WORK on the WT home page, ONLY with saved bookmarks).
Voila! The page opens and you can read it with your adblocker still turned on. No anti-adblocker roadblock!
You can click on articles and they will open and you can read them.
Works for me on the Mac.
Note:
You will see an alert on the top of the page that "javascript is needed to properly display the page".
IGNORE THIS.
You're seeing all that you need to see -- the article itself.

Again, this DOES NOT WORK with the WT home page.
It works ONLY with the sub-pages that you bookmarked.
Try it !