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/world/national-security/army-brig-gen-jeffrey-a-sinclair-pleads-guilty-to-lesser-charges-in-sexual-assault-case/2014/03/17/6e312022-ade0-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html?wprss=rss_national-security

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair pleads guilty to lesser charges in sexual assault case Accuser of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair stands by claim that he sexually assaulted her
(about 7 hours later)
The Army on Monday dropped sexual-assault charges against a general whose sex-crime trial has gripped the U.S. military, allowing him to plead to lesser counts. The female accuser in the sex-crimes trial of an Army general is satisfied with the plea deal that was reached in the case, but she stands by her assertion that he sexually assaulted her, according to her lawyer.
Under the plea deal, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair acknowledged he “maltreated” a junior officer with whom he had a long affair and caused her emotional distress. In exchange, he will avoid a conviction on charges that would have required him to register as a sex offender and almost certainly would have resulted in prison time. Jamie Barnett, a retired Navy rear admiral who serves as an unpaid lawyer for the general’s accuser, said Monday that the accuser stands by her testimony that Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair forced her to perform oral sex on two occasions and threatened to kill her and her family if she reported their three-year affair.
Sinclair’s sentence remains to be determined, although his attorneys said they have agreed to a side deal with the Army that would cap his punishment. As part of the plea deal, approved Monday by a military judge, the Army dropped the violence-related charges against Sinclair in exchange for his admission of guilt on several other less-serious counts. His sentence will be determined this week by a military judge at Fort Bragg, N.C.
If the plea offer holds, it would represent the end of an exceptionally rare court-martial of an Army general — there have been only three such cases in the past 60 years — and an even rarer prosecution of a one-star commander on sexual-misconduct charges. Barnett said the accuser, an Army captain who served on Sinclair’s staff in Iraq and Afghanistan, is glad the case is nearing an end, two years after she reported the affair to Sinclair’s commanding officer in Afghanistan. Barnett said she is ready to “move on with her life” while resuming her career in the military.
Since the investigation began two years ago, the Sinclair case has riveted the Army’s rank and file, and it has also caused endless legal and public-relations headaches for the Army’s leadership. At the same time, Barnett said, the captain is not backing down from her allegations of sexual assault, despite the Army’s decision to drop those charges. “She in no way is stepping away from the truth of it,” Barnett said in a phone interview. The Washington Post generally does not name alleged sex-crime victims.
The military has been grappling with an onslaught of sexual-assault cases that have angered Congress and the White House and inflamed public opinion. Given that climate, Army leaders knew that how they handled the investigation of a general would be scrutinized closely. Barnett’s comments marked the first time someone representing the accuser had spoken publicly on her behalf. In contrast, Sinclair’s legal defense team had mounted a vigorous public relations campaign for many months, running a Web site and a Twitter account to spread the message that he was a victim of politically motivated Army leaders intent on making an example of him.
The accusations against Sinclair are serious as well as sensational. A female captain who served on his staff in Iraq and Afghanistan reported that she had carried on a torrid affair with the married general for three years, having sex in two war zones and four countries. Sinclair’s lawyers also said that the captain accused Sinclair out of jealousy after she discovered raunchy e-mails he had written to other women.
But she blew the whistle on the relationship after she said he twice forced her to perform oral sex. She also charged that he had once threatened to kill her and her family if she revealed the affair. The Washington Post generally does not name alleged sex-crime victims. At his sentencing hearing Monday at Fort Bragg, Sinclair read a statement in which he admitted to the affair and to causing “emotional harm” to the woman under his command by breaking promises to divorce his wife and marry the captain instead.
Sinclair defended himself vigorously after he was charged by the Army, hiring a high-priced team of civilian defense attorneys and a public relations firm. Through his attorneys, he admitted the adulterous relationship but denied sexually assaulting or threatening the captain. His lawyers said the woman made up details to punish him for refusing to divorce his wife. “I failed her as a leader and as a mentor and caused harm to her emotional state,” Sinclair said as he appeared to choke up, according to an Associated Press reporter present in the courtroom.
There were holes in the accuser’s story. E-mails and text messages introduced in court showed that she remained enamored with the general long after she asserted he had assaulted her. As part of his plea deal, Sinclair admitted that he “maltreated” the captain by using his rank and authority to coerce her to keep up the affair and prevent her from breaking it off. In exchange, he avoided a conviction on sexual-assault charges that would have required him to register as a sex offender and almost certainly would have landed him in prison.
She also gave conflicting accounts to other witnesses of whether the general had abused her, as well as about other important details in the case. In recent months, according to court filings, even prosecutors had concluded that she had credibility problems as they debated whether to accept a plea offer from Sinclair. Sinclair’s accuser also briefly testified Monday. “I’m very guarded now,” she said tearfully, according to the AP. “I have a hard time trusting people. I have a very hard time feeling safe.”
“The government understood that if it allowed [General] Sinclair’s accuser to be cross-examined, she would be caught in a thick web of her own lies,” said Richard Scheff, the lead defense attorney for the general.
He added that Sinclair “had 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.”
Under military law, adultery is a crime. Given that and other offenses to which Sinclair has said he will plead guilty, he could still face stiff punishment. At a minimum, he is likely to be reduced in rank, fined and kicked out of the Army.