'Scathing' hardly does the opinion justice. Eviscerated the entire military justice system would be closer to appropriate description of the opinion.

Everyone at that time knew what the Commander in Chief Obama wanted, and they carried it out.

https://www.washingtontimes.co...V29GOUU5aWcifQ%3D%3D

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

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.”

“Yet the error in this case is both so obvious and so egregious that it adversely affected not only Appellant’s right to a fair trial by an impartial panel, but also the essential fairness and integrity of the military justice system,” Judge Ryan and the four other judges wrote.

Even worse, the high court suggested that the enlisted man never would have been convicted by a more gender-proportionate jury. It said the evidence was so weak that a hearing officer had recommended dismissing the charges. The admiral overseeing the case overruled him.

“The Government’s case was weak, primarily based on the testimony of [name redacted], the putative victim, who was unable to remember many of the events surrounding the crime due to alcohol use and whose testimony was controverted by other witnesses at trial,” the opinion read.

One of the admirals involved in jury selection is Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft. He was the last of four convening authorities of the rape trial.

Adm. Zukunft told a hearing judge that he was unaware of jury stacking. The appeals court rejected his excuse.

“As our cases on court stacking make clear, the actual ignorance of the convening authority does not insulate him or her from the errors or misconduct of his or her subordinates, which are errors affecting the court-martial selection process and court stacking nonetheless,” the opinion read.

“As we stated long ago, even reasonable doubt concerning the use of improper panel selection criteria will not be tolerated in the military justice system,” it read.

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.

Petty Officer Riesbeck was convicted of rape, two charges of making false statements and one charge of communicating indecent language. The jury sentenced him to three months of confinement, a reduction in rank and a bad-conduct discharge. Adm. Zukunft approved the punishment.

The appeals court quoted from a fact-finding judge who said, “Senior Coast Guard and Department of Defense leadership faced intense external pressure to do more about preventing and responding to sexual assaults,” and the Coast Guard adopted “a combat-like campaign in the ‘righteous’ cause of fighting sexual assault.”

“Due to the patent and intolerable efforts to manipulate the member selection process, contra every requirement of the law,” the appeals court said, adding that the only way to rectify the “clear court stacking” was to dismiss the charges without retrial.

Judge Ryan specifically criticized the Coast Guard appeals court, to which the high court had sent back the case for a new hearing only to have that court reaffirm the conviction.

“The fact that this case with these facts is returned to us for a second time, rather than attended to at trial, at the [post-trial] hearing or by the [appeals court], is a stain on the military justice system,” she wrote. “The duty to protect service members against unlawful command influence is not ours alone.”

The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, but its 40,000 personnel — about 10 percent of whom are women — come under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as do all military personnel.

Intense media focus in recent years centered on sexual abuse in the military. Last year, the scandal spilled with big splashes into the worlds of entertainment, journalism, politics and the arts, with scores of accused actors, directors, photographers, government officials, musicians, reporters and editors.

Link to the full opinion:
https://twt-media.washtimes.co...1/28/coast_guard.pdf

Dang, son.

What's bigger than "scathing"? "Obliterating"?

And tossing the conviction out with prejudice is a strong statement all on its own.

quote:

Judge Ryan specifically criticized the Coast Guard appeals court, to which the high court had sent back the case for a new hearing only to have that court reaffirm the conviction.

“The fact that this case with these facts is returned to us for a second time, rather than attended to at trial, at the [post-trial] hearing or by the [appeals court], is a stain on the military justice system,”

Mind-boggling. They fucked this case up multiple times, even after being specifically given a chance to fix it.

That's all great, but the career of Boatswain’s Mate 2nd Class Riesbeck is toast.

True.

For the military guys, what does this mean for him?

Does he (attempt to) resume his Cost Guard service?

Or does his Bad Conduct Discharge just get turned into an Honorable Discharge?

Witch hunts...

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
True.

For the military guys, what does this mean for him?

Does he (attempt to) resume his Cost Guard service?

Or does his Bad Conduct Discharge just get turned into an Honorable Discharge?

I sincerely hope his bad paper turns into good paper and he gets to move on with his life.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
True.

For the military guys, what does this mean for him?

Does he (attempt to) resume his Cost Guard service?

Or does his Bad Conduct Discharge just get turned into an Honorable Discharge?

"Petty Officer Riesbeck"

Maybe they'll make him a cook on a battleship...?

Wow! Scathing, indeed.

Another example of the war on men.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
True.

For the military guys, what does this mean for him?

Does he (attempt to) resume his Cost Guard service?

Or does his Bad Conduct Discharge just get turned into an Honorable Discharge?

I hope he gets his justice

all back pay and benefits, and an honorable discharge

along with a $1 million or so in punitive damages

I couldn't read past the half-way mark.

This is very disheartening to hear that officers at the highest levels would sacrifice an enlisted to the political correction gods.

I'm not a Navy fanboy but I truly believe that officers have a deeper respect for honor and integrity. I know this is the Coast Guard but nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I couldn't read past the half-way mark.

This is very disheartening to hear that officers at the highest levels would sacrifice an enlisted to the political correction gods.

I'm not a Navy fanboy but I truly believe that officers have a deeper respect for honor and integrity. I know this is the Coast Guard but nonetheless.

The highest levels of our most trusted military institutions are political and dishonorable. I’m consistantly amazed at how messaging and optics play into decision making more than simply asking “what does right look like? How do we do that?” Not all officers are this way, but unfortunately it is common at senior levels from my observations.

It's a tough issue because it happens in all levels of the justice system.

You want tough prosecutors who fight to put the guilty behind bars, but when you reward them based on the number of convictions they get this type of result will inevitably happen.

I don't know what the answer is but when it happens in cases like this, where there is clearly not enough evidence to convict someone, something has to be done. At least this finally was overturned, but it is now 6 YEARS later.

Where does this guy go to get his reputation back?

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Witch hunts...

Which hunts?

You'd never see the Washington Post run this article.

And what now happens to the four admirals? Nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
I couldn't read past the half-way mark.

This is very disheartening to hear that officers at the highest levels would sacrifice an enlisted to the political correction gods.

I'm not a Navy fanboy but I truly believe that officers have a deeper respect for honor and integrity. I know this is the Coast Guard but nonetheless.

I was in the CG.

I too was railroaded by the UCMJ

I was smart and played my card to the tune of involving the local news...

My "issue" was handled then at the "Captains Mast" (non-judicial level-Article 15 in the other services) and I received a letter saying not to do it again.

I recognized the railroading witchhunt when they began reading me my rights and informing me I had been charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Had I not made such a huge, loud and political cry about the case continuing where no crime had occurred, I too would have gotten sent to the brig-over hearsay.

Trust and believe the further up in rank you are; the more political you become. (unless you are a Warrant, who are mystical beings and can do near anything)

Sadly PO2 Riesbeck will never get his time, pay, rank or his dignity back; nor will the stain on his reputation be restored. I hope he gets a big fat check.

And I hope the lawyers who chose to continue to pursue charges, when the evidence was glaring them in the face, get censured and their careers are ground to a halt.

Seeking the TRUTH is what any investigation should be about, not destroying someone who has not committed a crime for political or personal gains.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:
And what now happens to the four admirals? Nothing.

No kidding, right...

quote:

Adm. Zukunft told a hearing judge that he was unaware of jury stacking.

Amazing yet, you're the authority in charge of assembling the jury. You may have just tipped the scales and become the shinning example, in changing how military trails are conducted.

Integrity was totally lacking in this case. Looks like the USCG will get a new Commandant.

what about the other admirals?

and the jurors...aren't they guilty of collusion? how about the prosecutors that stacked the jury?

go after everyone

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Integrity was totally lacking in this case. Looks like the USCG will get a new Commandant.

No they won't.

Admiral Zukunft, wasn't the Commandant when he was "unaware" of the court stacking...he was in charge of the whole processes surrounding the Courts Martials....and he sure as hell knew, but he won't get sacked as Commandant because of it.

Next week there will be a directive to whomever took over his job to not do what he did and things will continue with him as Commandant.