This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/17/army-general-guilty-lesser-charges-sexual-assault-trial

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Army general pleads guilty to lesser charges in sexual assault trial plea deal Army general in sexual assault trial plea deal tells court he 'failed' accuser
(about 4 hours later)
A US army general who admitted to inappropriate relationships with three soldiers under his command pleaded guilty Monday to a host of lesser charges as prosecutors dropped the most serious — sexual assault counts — as part of a deal. An army general who admitted to improper relationships with three subordinates appeared to choke up on Monday as he told a judge that he had failed the female captain who levelled the most serious accusations against him.
The hearing at Fort Bragg capped the high-profile prosecution of Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair, as the military continues to grapple with revelations of sex crimes in its ranks and political pressure to address the issue. A sentencing hearing for Sinclair – believed to be the highest-ranking US military officer to face court-martial on sexual assault charges – could begin as soon as Monday. At his sentencing hearing, Brigadier General Jeffrey Sinclair explained details of his three-year affair with the woman under his command for the first time publicly. His voice halted when telling the judge why he was pleading guilty to mistreating her in a deal that included the dropping of sexual assault charges.
Lawyers for Sinclair said over the weekend that he would plead to lesser charges in exchange for the dropping of the sexual assault charges and two other counts that might have required him to register as a sex offender. “I failed her as a leader and as a mentor and caused harm to her emotional state,” Sinclair said, his voice catching as he read from a statement. He asked the judge for a break and took a long drink of water before continuing to read.
Sinclair, 51, had been accused of twice forcing a female captain under his command to perform oral sex during a three-year extramarital affair. The Associated Press does not generally identify alleged victims of sexual assault. “I created a situation over time that caused her emotional harm,” Sinclair said, while seated and in his dress blue uniform. It was the first public show of regret or sadness from a 27-year veteran who had betrayed little emotion in court hearings over the past year.
The army’s case against Sinclair started to crumble as questions arose about whether the woman had lied in a pre-trial hearing. It was further thrown into jeopardy last week when judge Colonel James Pohl said the military may have improperly pressed ahead with the trial to send a message about its determination to curb rape and other widespread misconduct. Under the military code of justice, the decision was supposed to be decided solely on the evidence, not its broader political implications. The judge accepted Sinclair’s guilty pleas on several lesser charges in a deal that includes the dropping of sexual assault counts and two others that may have required him to register as a sex offender.
Ultimately, a judge will give Sinclair a sentence that cannot exceed terms in the agreement struck between defence lawyers and military attorneys. The legal agreement is likely to require a punishment less severe than the maximum penalties of 15 years in prison and dismissal from the army. A sentencing hearing for Sinclair was scheduled to start on Monday afternoon. Ultimately, the judge will give Sinclair a sentence that cannot exceed terms in the agreement struck between defence lawyers and military attorneys over the weekend. The legal agreement is likely to require a punishment far less severe than the maximum penalties of 21 ½ years in prison and dismissal from the army.
Sinclair may also face additional administrative penalties from the army, which could force him to retire at reduced rank. That could cost Sinclair hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension benefits. Sinclair’s own lawyer suggested he might walk out of court a free man, but without a career and perhaps with hundreds of thousands of dollars less in pension benefits.
Retired Major General Walt Huffman, a Texas Tech University law professor who previously served as the army’s top lawyer, said Sinclair could be busted back two ranks to lieutenant colonel, since the affair at the heart of the case began before his most recent promotion. “I hope he is permitted to retire at a reduced rank and can go home to his family,” defense attorney Richard Scheff said before court started on Monday.
Huffman said it was possible the judge could sentence Sinclair to a punishment lower than what is called for in the plea agreement. Scheff said Sinclair had pleaded guilty to violations of military law that likely would not be criminal in the civilian world.
“If the judge determines he was a good soldier who served his country well other than his inability to control his zipper, then the judge might cut him a break,” Huffman said. “But either way, his career in the army is going to be over.” Sinclair, 51, had been accused of twice forcing the female captain under his command to perform oral sex during the three-year extramarital affair. The Associated Press does not generally identify those who say they were victims of sexual assault.
Sinclair’s new plea agreement was approved and signed over the weekend by a high-ranking general overseeing the case, according to a copy provided by the defence team. The married general pleaded guilty earlier this month to having improper relationships with three subordinate officers, including the captain. He also pleaded guilty to adultery, which is a crime in the military.
The married 27-year army veteran pleaded guilty earlier this month to having improper relationships with three subordinate officers, including the female captain who accused him of assault. He also pleaded guilty to adultery, which is a crime in the military. After those pleas were entered, the military judge found evidence that there may have been improper influence in a decision to reject a previous plea offer by Sinclair. The trial was halted, in an unusual move, to allow further plea negotiations.
Under the plea deal reached over the weekend, Sinclair also admits to abusing a government credit card he used while traveling to visit his mistress. Under a plea deal reached over the weekend, Sinclair admits his treatment of the captain broke military law and could have caused “mental harm or suffering during the course of an on-going inappropriate sexual relationship”.
Defence attorney Richard Scheff said Sinclair was admitting to his mistakes, but added that the general was pleading guilty to behaviour that likely wouldn’t be criminal in the civilian world. Sinclair also on Monday admitted to abusing a government credit card he used while traveling to visit his mistress and contacting her after being told not to.
“After wasting millions of taxpayer dollars, the army finally admitted what it’s known for many months: General Sinclair is innocent of sexual assault,” Scheff said. “Brigadier General Sinclair has admitted to mistakes that are normally a matter between husbands and wives, or employees and HR departments. It’s time to put this matter to rest.” In court on Monday, Sinclair denied ever putting his hands on the captain in anger. He said he once held her briefly as she tried to leave a hotel room because he was afraid she might harm herself and or draw attention in the lobby that would reveal their affair.
On Monday morning at Fort Bragg, ahead of the hearing, Scheff said he expected Sinclair to “to retire at a reduced rank and go home to his family”. Scheff said he understood that the military needs to take a harder line against sexual assault but said that there must be a balance: “It doesn’t mean every complaint that’s brought should go forward.” About a year into the affair, Sinclair said, he had begun to realise that the captain wanted a complete relationship, while he was not going to leave his wife. He said the captain was “emotionally invested in a way I was not”.
Prosecutors did not comment on the deal or the case before the hearing. So Sinclair started using tactics to try to keep the captain from revealing a relationship that broke military law both because Sinclair was married and a superior officer. He lied and said he planned to divorce his wife, to keep the captain hoping for something more. And he started flirting with other women, in the hope that the captain would leave quietly.
According to the defence, a separate agreement reached with Fort Bragg commander Major General Clarence KK Chinn, who approved the plea deal, will dictate what punishments Sinclair will receive. That part of the agreement will remain secret until after Pohl, as the judge overseeing the case, conducts the sentencing hearing. That process will include testimony from about 20 witnesses. Sinclair said his actions were “not based on my honest feelings for her, but were based on my fear of exposure”.
It was not immediately clear whether his primary accuser will be among those called to the stand. The end of Sinclair’s prosecution comes as the military continues to grapple with revelations of sex crimes in its ranks and political pressure to address the issue. The general’s chief attorney said he understands that the military needs to take a harder line against sexual assault but that there must be a balance.
At the hearing, Pohl will sentence Sinclair based on the evidence presented before unsealing the plea deal. Sinclair will receive whichever is the lesser punishment – the judge’s sentence or the negotiated pre-sentencing agreement with prosecutors. “It doesn’t mean every complaint that’s brought should go forward,” Scheff said.
Captain Cassie L Fowler, the military lawyer assigned to represent the accuser’s interests, did not respond to a message seeking comment Sunday. In a December letter, Fowler had argued to prosecutors that dismissing the sexual assault charges against Sinclair would not only harm her client, but would set back the military’s broader fight to combat sexual assault. Prosecutors have not spoken outside court since word of the plea deal was released.
Captain Cassie L Fowler, the military lawyer assigned to represent the accuser’s interests, did not respond to a message seeking comment.
In a December letter, Fowler had argued to prosecutors that dismissing the sexual assault charges against Sinclair would not only harm her client, but would set back the military’s broader fight to combat sexual assault.
The army’s case against Sinclair started to crumble as questions arose about whether his primary accuser had lied in a pre-trial hearing. It was further thrown into jeopardy last week when Judge Colonel James Pohl said the military may have improperly pressed ahead with the trial in order to send a message about its determination to curb rape and other widespread misconduct. Under the military code of justice, the decision was supposed to be decided solely on the evidence, not its broader political implications.
Sinclair’s lawyers may call up to two dozen witnesses to testify on his behalf at the sentencing hearing. Prosecutors will also call witnesses. It isn’t known if Sinclair’s primary accuser will testify.
The hearing is expected to last into Tuesday.