Lt Col Wilkerson sexual assault case

[Disco_Nav963]

Story here.

Franklin, a three-star commander based in Germany, is not a judge and did not observe the trial. But as the senior officer in Wilkerson’s chain of command, he had final authority in the court-martial process. Air Force officials said he reviewed the entire trial record as well as a clemency appeal from the defendant and a personal letter from the accuser. He concluded that there was “insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” and decided he “could not, in good conscience, sustain the conviction,” according to Lt. Col. Paul D. Baldwin, an Air Force spokesman.

In a letter, McCaskill asked Air Force Secretary Michael B. Donley and Gen. Mark A. Welsh III, the Air Force chief of staff, to consider firing Franklin. “I just think the system is messed up if a general can overturn a case like this with a stroke of a pen,” she said. “That’s just offensive to anyone’s sense of justice.”

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said she would introduce a bill next week to strip commanders of their power to overturn legal decisions or reduce sentences imposed by military judges and juries. Such actions, she said, “make a mockery of the entire legal system. ... The laws that are on the books . . . are so antiquated and so rigged in favor of the assailant that frankly it’s no wonder someone won’t report” a sex crime, Speier said in an interview.

To me this reads like politicians trying to intimidate the appellate process... I remember reading about this case in the Stars and Stripes when the trial was happening and thinking the evidence sounded weak. I have a hard time imagining in the current environment that the NAF would overturn the conviction without good reason.

[17D_guy]

To me this reads like politicians trying to intimidate the appellate process... I remember reading about this case in the Stars and Stripes when the trial was happening and thinking the evidence sounded weak. I have a hard time imagining in the current environment that the NAF would overturn the conviction without good reason.

Wonder if the evidence is weak because the Vice CC got fired for slow rolling the investigation.

Not a lawyer, but this wasn't the appellate processes. It didn't go to the court of military appeals. Franklin just said, "I don't agree" and turned it over.

Edited March 9, 2013 by 17D_guy

[frog]

Story here.

To me this reads like politicians trying to intimidate the appellate process... I remember reading about this case in the Stars and Stripes when the trial was happening and thinking the evidence sounded weak. I have a hard time imagining in the current environment that the NAF would overturn the conviction without good reason.

Tough to say...he was convicted by five of his peers.

[HercDude]

https://www.stripes.com/news/former-ig-gets-1-year-sentence-dismissal-for-sexual-assault-1.195865

I don't usually put a lot of weight behind what I read from people commenting on articles & videos on the internet, but scroll to the bottom and it appears there are a lot of people who think the guy got thrown under the bus in order to make an example of him, despite the lack of evidence.

[Vetter]

The alleged victim was in the med group. The jury was stacked with shoe clerk med group Lt Cols. Hardly a jury of his peers.

Also, she had called wolf at least once before which was not admissible in court.

Sounds to me like he was thrown under the bus.

[magnetfreezer]

Wonder if the evidence is weak because the Vice CC got fired for slow rolling the investigation.

Not a lawyer, but this wasn't the appellate processes. It didn't go to the court of military appeals. Franklin just said, "I don't agree" and turned it over.

In civilian courts, can't trial judges set aside a guilty verdict if they feel not enough evidence was presented, etc? Not the official appeals court but still an avenue of appeal for the defendant if the case is strong enough.

[nsplayr]

The jury was stacked with shoe clerk med group Lt Cols. Hardly a jury of his peers.

Where in the real world does the jury have to have the same job as you?

From reading the story it all does seem a little shady, but to argue that the jury wasn't made up of his peers when they were military officers of similar rank doesn't really make a lot of sense and is kinda focusing on the wrong thing.

Edited March 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[Gravedigger]

Not going to comment on this case, but our military legal system is in need of an overhaul. I sat on a separation board that was very intense and involved a ton of emotional testimony and evidence and really messed up actions by the member's Sq/CC. The CC clearly had it out for this guy. Anyway, after several days of court and hours of reviewing evidence, we the panel unanimously agreed the commander was targeting this dude and that he should be retained. Two weeks later the CC denied reenlistment, that was it, dude was out of the Air Force. What a fucking waste.

[Smokin]

If you read the original story of his conviction in the AF times, it sounds like complete BS that he was convicted in the first place. The article specifically said that there was zero physical evidence, it was he said she said. That by itself should raise some eyebrows; how do you come to a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt when there is zero evidence? Then you add on the fact that his wife was sober and agreed with his story so it was actually a 2v1 including a sober wife against an admittedly drunk woman. BS flags are all over this case, yet this guy was still put in prison. Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

General Franklin is one of the good guys and I'm glad to see our leaders stick out their necks for what they know is right. I just hope it doesn't cost him (and us) his future in the AF.

Finally, how are our elected leaders so ignorant? “I just think the system is messed up if a general can overturn a case like this with a stroke of a pen,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill. Do you think she knows that she and her peers are actually in charge of the laws that allow this?

[Vetter]

Well, I'd be scared as shit if I was on trial for raping a Nav and the entire jury was made up of Navs.

[LockheedFix]

Well, I'd be scared as shit if I was on trial for raping a Nav and the entire jury was made up of Navs.

Don't worry, I don't think there are enough navs left in the AF for this scenario to happen.

[Dupe]

Raping navs is pretty much the one acceptable form of discrimination left....

[ThreeHoler]

I wasn't aware you could discriminate against a nav, since they're not really people and all.

[Vertigo]

Well, I'd be scared as shit if I was on trial for raping a Nav and the entire jury was made up of Navs.

It's not rape if they ask for it, literally... almost to the point of begging.

[Azimuth]

Well, I'd be scared as shit if I was on trial for raping a Nav and the entire jury was made up of Navs.

[jcj]

In civilian courts, can't trial judges set aside a guilty verdict if they feel not enough evidence was presented, etc? Not the official appeals court but still an avenue of appeal for the defendant if the case is strong enough.

Yes. If the jury returns a guilty verdict, the defense can move for court to grant judgment of not guilty notwithstanding the verdict. Rarely granted. Before that happens, after the prosecution closes it's case the defense can (and usually will) move for a directed verdict of not guilty - usually on the basis that the prosecution hasn't made a sufficient case to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt (to get a guilty verdict the prosecution has the duty to prove guilt - the defense doesn't have to prove anything, but does have the opportunity to disprove any case the prosecution makes). This motion is also usually denied.

Appeals court may address findings of law (procedural matters & decisions of trial court judge) but will rarely second-guess findings of fact by a jury.

These are general rules for civilian courts. I presume UCMJ is similar, but I don't know.

Edited March 11, 2013 by jcj

[HeloDude]

Watching A Few Good Men more or less concurs with everything you just said. I should have been a lawyer.

[08Dawg]

I wasn't aware you could discriminate against a nav, since they're not really people and all.

I cordially invite you all to kiss my ass...

[Guest one]

At least no one said navs don't have souls.

Edited March 11, 2013 by one

[afnav]

Love the nav bashing...

[Fuzz]

I think I'm beginning to understand the hate for navs, my eyes weren't ready for that.

[Buddy Spike]

I wasn't aware you could discriminate against a nav, since they're not really people and all.

[M2]

Rut-Ro!

Hagel Intervenes in Aviano Sex-Abuse Case: Amid lawmakers' outcry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has directed Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Defense Department Acting General Counsel Robert Taylor to look into the decision by 3rd Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin that overturned the sexual-misconduct conviction of a former officer at Aviano AB, Italy. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) announced Hagel's action on Monday, releasing the March 7 letter that he sent her. Hagel wrote Boxer that he wanted Donley and Taylor "to determine how the factual basis" for Franklin's decision "can be made more transparent" and to review the case "to assess whether all aspects of the [uniform Code of Military Justice] were followed." He wants them to report to him—after they consult with the Army and Navy Secretaries—whether DOD should consider UCMJ changes. Hagel also told Boxer he's prepared to work with lawmakers to "help ensure the effectiveness" of DOD's responses "to the crime of sexual assault." Franklin was the convening authority for the court-martial of Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, former 31st Fighter Wing inspector general found guilty last November of improper sexual conduct with a female civilian base employee. Upon reviewing the case, Franklin overturned the conviction, citing lack of sufficient evidence. Under the UCMJ, the convening authority's decision is final; no one, including the Defense Secretary can change it, according to Hagel's missive. Hagel said the case "does raise a significant question" about the convening authority's role.

[frog]

This keeps getting better and better!

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/us/politics/hagel-to-open-review-of-sexual-assault-case.html

[Alpharatz]

It's not rape if they ask for it, literally... almost to the point of begging.

The only type of incident that you people describe that I know of personally was between a pilot and a boom...didn't end too well.....But really, the homo-erotic fantasy (panic?) in these comments is "a little worrisome"....Oh, well...things change....just don't wreck one of my jets winking at #2 or something......

..............Lt. the crew chiefs are demanding nitrile gloves...and spray down that door handle....................