This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/judge-to-rule-in-naval-academy-sexual-assault-case-after-hearing-closing-arguments/2014/03/20/d9211394-b040-11e3-b8b3-44b1d1cd4c1f_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Judge finds midshipman not guilty in Naval Academy sexual assault case Judge finds midshipman not guilty in Naval Academy sex assault case
(about 9 hours later)
A military judge on Thursday found a former Navy football player not guilty of sexually assaulting a female classmate at an April 2012 party, in the latest high-profile case to focus on the military’s handling of sexual assault claims. A military judge on Thursday found a former Navy football player not guilty of sexually assaulting a female classmate in a high-profile case that reverberated far beyond the U.S. Naval Academy’s Annapolis campus.
Marine Corps Col. Daniel Daugherty issued his ruling to a packed courtroom at the Washington Navy Yard. Daugherty determined midshipman Joshua Tate’s fate after Tate waived his right to a jury trial last week. Marine Col. Daniel Daugherty issued his ruling on the fate of Midshipman Joshua Tate to a packed courtroom at the Washington Navy Yard.
Tate, of Nashville, stood emotionless as the verdict was read, while a supporter seated behind him cried. He later left the courtroom without saying anything. Tate, a 22-year-old senior from Nashville, showed no emotion as the verdict was read, while a supporter seated behind him cried. The judge referred lesser charges of lying to investigators back to the academy to handle internally. Cmdr. John Schofield, an academy spokesman, said Thursday that the remaining charges were being dropped in exchange for Tate’s agreement “to accept the most serious form of punishment a midshipman can receive through the conduct system: a dismissal from the Naval Academy.”
Tate still faces conduct charges for lying to investigators that will be handled within the U.S. Naval Academy’s midshipman conduct system, the judge said. Tate will likely be forced to leave, his lawyers said, even though he has no other prior conduct violations. His accuser, also a 22-year-old senior, has become a pariah on campus but remains on track to be commissioned as a Navy officer this spring. (The Washington Post generally does not identify alleged victims of sexual assault.)
Tate was one of three former Navy football players charged in the case. But charges were later dropped against the other two, Eric Graham of Eight Mile, Ala., and Tra’ves Bush of Johnston, S.C. The woman was not in the courtroom for the ruling but was described by her attorneys as deeply disappointed. “She was appalled by the lack of accountability but hopes that her coming forward will result in meaningful reforms of the military justice system,” Ryan Guilds said.
The case centered on what happened between Tate and the accuser, a female midshipman, in a car parked outside a crowded party at a house rented by Tate’s teammates, and whether the alleged victim was too drunk to consent to sex. (The Washington Post does not generally identify alleged victims of sexual assault.) The case, which initially involved three former Navy football players before charges against two were dropped, has fueled debate about how the military addresses sexual violence in its ranks and whether its legal system is equipped to deal with such cases.
The accuser said she drank a lot and remembers little of that night. The defense argued that even though she did not remember what happened, she was in control of her faculties at the time. Eugene Fidell, an expert in military law and a lecturer at Yale Law School, called the process “a case in point for why the system has to be changed.”
But former military prosecutor Greg Rinckey drew the opposite conclusion: “The process worked itself out. And the accuser can’t say she didn’t get her day in court.”
The verdict came the same day Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair was sentenced in another closely followed sexual misconduct case. Sinclair admitted that he had an affair with a junior officer who’d accused him of sexually assaulting her and improper relationships with two other women. A judge reprimanded Sinclair and fined him $20,000 but did not order prison time.
Congressional lawmakers have been considering changes to how the military handles such cases in the future. A set of changes was passed late last year, including changes to the Article 32 preliminary hearing, often likened to a grand jury, that several lawmakers said was crafted in response to the experience of the alleged victim in the Naval Academy case. At the Article 32 hearing, the accuser testified for more than 20 hours, much of it under cross-examination by three teams of attorneys for the defendants.
But the case may be setting back efforts to encourage victims to come forward. The figures the Pentagon released in January for the 2012-13 school year showed that at the military service academies, the number of “unrestricted” reports of sexual assault, which trigger an investigation, fell by 30 percent compared with the prior academic year. The number of restricted reports, which allow the victim to seek treatment but do not trigger a probe, increased by 7 percent during the same time period.
The experience of the accuser in the Naval Academy case probably contributed to the decrease in unrestricted reports, said Delilah Rumburg, chief executive of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape and co-author of a study on sexual harassment and sexual assault at the service academies for the Pentagon.
“It sends a message: ‘All these people are not going to believe me,’ ” she said.
The backlash against the verdict Thursday was swift. Within minutes, Susan Burke, an attorney for the accuser, issued a written statement, saying the young woman was “twice victimized: first by her attacker and then by the failed investigation and prosecution of this case.”
But defense attorneys repeated their contention Thursday that Burke was using the woman to advance a political agenda, regardless of the merits of the case.
“The system is broken in many different directions,” said Tate’s attorney, Jason Ehrenberg. And although he said he was glad that the case had prompted an expansion of victims’ rights, he criticized the means by which it had been achieved. “Don’t use my client to advocate for a cause when you don’t know the evidence or my client,” he said.
The case centered on what happened between Tate and the woman in a car parked outside an off-campus party in 2012 and whether the woman was too drunk to consent to sex.
The accuser testified that she drank heavily and remembers little of that night. She said she learned from friends and through social media that she had had sex with multiple men. The defense argued that even though the woman did not remember what happened, she was in control of her faculties at the time.
As he read the verdict, Daugherty said the case raised two questions: How drunk is too drunk? And how does one know someone is too drunk to engage in sexual activity?As he read the verdict, Daugherty said the case raised two questions: How drunk is too drunk? And how does one know someone is too drunk to engage in sexual activity?
He said the investigation was hobbled by the delayed cooperation of the alleged victim and was unable to provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was too incapacitated to consent to sex. He said that the investigation was hobbled by the woman’s initial reluctance to cooperate and that it failed to provide enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was too incapacitated to consent to sex.
The alleged victim was not in the courtroom Thursday, but through her attorneys she said she was disappointed by the verdict. “She was appalled by the lack of accountability but hopes that her coming forward will result in meaningful reforms of the military justice system,” Ryan Guilds, one of the attorneys said. The verdict ends a case that exposed a culture of binge drinking and casual sex at the Navy’s premier officer training ground, much to the dismay of many alumni.
The accuser’s attorneys, as well as Tate’s, said the case showed that the military’s system of dealing with sexual assault claims is broken, but for slightly different reasons. The accuser initially did not want to report the incident but was forced to after another student threatened to do so. She then refused to cooperate for nine months and tried to get the defendants to lie to investigators to stop the case.
Susan Burke, another attorney for the accuser, said the young woman was “twice victimized: first by her attacker and then by the failed investigation and prosecution of this case.” She eventually changed her mind, prosecutors said, and went public with her allegations in May, saying the academy superintendent was trying to bury the case.
Defense attorneys have criticized Burke in the past for using the alleged victim to advance a political agenda, a criticism Tate’s attorneys repeated Thursday. The next month, the academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael Miller, charged the midshipmen: Tate; Eric Graham of Eight Mile, Ala.; and Tra’ves Bush of Johnston, S.C.
“The system is broken in many different directions,” Tate’s lawyer Jason Ehrenberg said after the verdict. “Don’t use my client to advocate for a cause when you don’t know the evidence or my client.” After the Article 32 hearing, Miller dropped the charges against Bush. But he ignored the recommendations of a military judge and his in-house counsel and ordered Tate and Graham to face a court-martial. (Charges against Graham were dropped later.) Lawsuits filed by the woman and the defendants accused Miller of being biased and sought his removal from the case.
The verdict ends a winding and at times tortured case that almost didn’t come to trial. The judge’s decision to declare Tate not guilty was no surprise to many of those following the case.
The accuser did not want to report the incident initially but was forced to after another student threatened to. She then refused to cooperate for nine months and even tried to get the defendants to lie to investigators in an effort to make the case go away. The probe was then halted in December 2012. Fidell, the legal expert, called the outcome “inevitable.” The process shouldn’t have been so tortured, he said.
It resumed the following month after the alleged victim began to cooperate. She went public with her allegations in May, saying the academy superintendent was trying to bury the case. The academy’s superintendent, Vice Adm. Michael Miller, then charged the three midshipmen. “In the end, it worked. But it cost everyone an arm and a leg, including the young woman,” he said. “I think this is an exercise we really didn’t have to endure.”
At a preliminary hearing last summer, lawyers for the three men kept the accuser on the stand for more than 20 hours of intense cross-examination. Accounts of the hearing convinced lawmakers to pass a law that limits the time an alleged victim must testify in those proceedings.
Miller sent Graham and Tate to face trial over the recommendations of a military judge and his own in-house counsel. That decision led to lawsuits against Miller by attorneys for both the accuser and the defendants, accusing Miller of caving to political pressure to move the case forward.
Charges were later dropped against Graham, and Tate was left to stand trial alone.
As the case progressed, the Congress passed changes to military law to limit the amount of time alleged victims have to testify at preliminary hearings known as an Article 32, based largely on the experience of the alleged victim in the Tate case.
Congress also curtailed the authority of commanders in sexual assault cases and imposed some civilian oversight.
But a separate bill that would have removed sexual assault cases from the military chain of command, among other measures, that was sponsored by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), recently failed a key vote in the Senate.
The changes in the laws, however, had no affect on Tate’s trial.