In all of the political and policy discourse about sexual assaults little if any attention is given to sexual assaults committed by women, usually on men.
Here is an interesting article about the “discussion” about prison sexual assault. Can the same be said for non prison sexual assault views.
Engendering Rape
In trial of defendant for sexually abusing two minors, the admissibility of evidence that victims had made false accusation of sexual abuse against others was admissible, not under FRE 403, FRE 412, or 608(b), but rather under the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation, in United States v. Frederick, 683 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. July 5, 2012) (No. 11-1546).
h/t federalevidence.com
We hold that the military judge improperly limited cross-examination of the prosecutrix by precluding defense questions concerning her diary, a prior false rape claim, and two prior false claims concerning her health. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-79, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 1434-35, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1986); seeMil.R.Evid. 608(c), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984. We also hold these constitutional errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and require a rehearing. See generally Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 233, 109 S. Ct. 480, 484, 102 L. Ed. 2d 513 (1988).
United States v. Bahr, 33 M.J. 228, (C.M.A. 1991).
Army Times reports:
A federal appeals panel says sex offenders convicted in military court but housed by the Bureau of Prisons are not eligible for civil commitment.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Monday in the case of former Army officer Benjamin Barnard Joshua, who pleaded guilty in military court to sexually molesting children. He was transferred to a federal penitentiary because of military prison downsizing.
Sad, but not unusual, from The False Rape Society.
My story started last summer when we got back from Iraq. My best friend and I went to a night club and long story short I had sex with a woman. This woman was a female soldier and ended up being late to work the next morning. I was on leave at the time, so I didn’t have to go too work. She accused me of raping her, because she was going to show up to work drunk and late.
. . . the charges are being dropped . . .
NMCCA has decided United States v. Oglesby.
The issue was prosecution sentencing evidence of other acts toward the victim which had not been charged. Appellant alleged that the military judge failed to conduct a proper 1001 and Mil. R. Evid. 403 balancing test. NMCCA disagreed.
NMCCA found that the military judge properly evaluated the evidence as to its admissibility, including a 403 balancing. The court further found that the military judge correctly gave a limiting instruction to the members on how they could use the additional evidence.
Sexual assault allegations at the USAFA have dropped, but risen at the other academies. But they have dropped overall. The report does not indicate the disposition of the cases – founded or unfounded, court-martial or other disciplinary actions under the UCMJ.
Marine Times reports
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals released today its en banc decision in United States v. Medina, No. 200900053, __ M.J. __ (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2009). The main portion of the opinion focuses on Art. 120. The majority finds Art. 120 facially constitutional, citing United States v. Crotchett, __ M.J. ___, No. NMCCA 200800770 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. May 12, 2009) (en banc), the court’s prior decision on Art. 120.
NMCCA has issued six new decisions, of which four are merits.
United States v. Maharrey, post-trial delay case.
United States v. Thornton. Appellant raises ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) and sufficiency of the evidence. The findings and sentence are set-aside based on the IAC. The IAC relates to several issues: failure to properly advise on forum; failure to prepare appellant to testify; failure to cross-examine some witnesses. A DuBay (United States v. DuBay, 37 C.M.R. 411 (1986)) hearing was ordered. The military judge found several issues of IAC. The DuBay judge did not agree with all the allegations of IAC.
A couple of new opinions from NMCCA address issues related to CP prosecutions.
United States v. Jones, III, has this issue:
WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY DENYING APPELLANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE EVIDENCE BEFORE HE PLED GUILTY AND WHETHER, IN LIGHT OF THAT DENIAL, APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS PROVIDENT.
Thanks to CAAFLog, here is a link to the above report.
Here are the most pertinent sections affecting military justice trial practitioners.
SEC. 512. MEDICAL EXAMINATION REQUIRED BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE SEPARATION OF MEMBERS DIAGNOSED WITH OR REASONABLY ASSERTING POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER OR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog