quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

I worked for a former Army JAG prosecutor.

Whenever there was a case involving adultery, he always charged the person with a 134 violation and rape.

If the defendant said the sex was consensual, BOOM!, it was admission to the 134 charge. If the defendant said it wasn't adultery, BOOM! admission to rape.

In either case the defendant was toast and backed into accepting a plea deal.

You lawyers are tricky-good!
Next ask him when he stopped beating his wife.

If this is the same guy, WAVY reports he was found Guilty of sexual harassment and battery.

WAVY

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

I worked for a former Army JAG prosecutor.

Whenever there was a case involving adultery, he always charged the person with a 134 violation and rape.

If the defendant said the sex was consensual, BOOM!, it was admission to the 134 charge. If the defendant said it wasn't adultery, BOOM! admission to rape.

In either case the defendant was toast and backed into accepting a plea deal.

You lawyers are tricky-good!
Next ask him when he stopped beating his wife.

It's not nearly so simple.

If the suspect denies having sex with the alleged victim (or makes no statement at all), the prosecution would need to prove there was actually sexual contact between the parties.

There is no "Catch-22" that guarantees a conviction.

Further, in cases where a rape/sexual assault is charged, and both the suspect and alleged victim admit to consensual sex at some point (like this case), some prosecutors are leery of charging the 134 Adultery as it raises questions of fairness if the alleged victim is not also disciplined for the admitted Adultery.

Suffice to say these cases can be very complicated.

Verdict could have been much worse, but it sounds as though the woman is being vindictive.

http://www.sandiegouniontribun...-20170323-story.html

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
If this is the same guy, WAVY reports he was found Guilty of sexual harassment and battery.

WAVY

I just checked the MCM and looked for recent amendments (most recent being done by EO in late 2016), and can't find a charge for "sexual harassment."

Yep. Could have been much worse. Now just waiting for the fallout.

Possibly Article 93 Cruelty and Maltreatment, which includes language related to "sexual harassment," bit I didn't see anything in the prior stories about an Article 93 charge.

Are the convictions for the civilian versions of misdemeanors or felonies?

I remember hearing about this at the time. Sad for all involved. Lessons great and small for all in this, especially the "don't dip your wick in crazy" and just don't unzip.

Sea wives etc so rarely works out well.

Sexual harassment should fall under Article 120.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Sexual harassment should fall under Article 120.

The only place the term "sexual harassment" appears in the MCM is in reference to Article 93.

quote:

Originally posted by BB61:
Are the convictions for the civilian versions of misdemeanors or felonies?

A recent update lists "aggravated assault" which is punishable by up to five years, and a dishonorable discharge. If that is correct, it is obviously punishable by more than a year in prison, and is a "felony. "

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Sexual harassment should fall under Article 120.

The only place the term "sexual harassment" appears in the MCM is in reference to Article 93.

Correct.

Also read Article 120. "As part of the FY 2006 Military Authorization Act, Congress amended Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), effective for offenses occurring on and after October 1, 2007. Article 120 was formerly known as "Rape and carnal knowledge," but is now entitled "Rape, sexual assault, and other sexual misconduct.""

89 days in the brig, RIR to E6. No mention of discharge after the brig time.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
89 days in the brig, RIR to E6. No mention of discharge after the brig time.

WOW

Interesting sentence. Wonder if there is the possibility of reinstatement.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
89 days in the brig, RIR to E6. No mention of discharge after the brig time.

My take is:

1-Sounds like the judge bought the story of the sex being consensual.

2-SEALs are expensive to train.

3-See #2.

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Interesting sentence. Wonder if there is the possibility of reinstatement.

I didn't see anything in the sentence where this would even be a necessity. Seems like 89 days from now, he's back to work.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

quote:

Originally posted by bcereuss:

quote:

Originally posted by ulsterman:
Interesting sentence. Wonder if there is the possibility of reinstatement.

I didn't see anything in the sentence where this would even be a necessity. Seems like 89 days from now, he's back to work.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong...

Reinstatement of rank.

Wow. Thought it would be worse.