Judge rules Army interfered improperly in sexual assault case

FT. BRAGG, N.C. — The Army improperly interfered with the decision to reject Brig. 

Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair's offer to plead guilty to lesser charges in his sexual assault case, a military judge ruled Monday.

Col. James L. Pohl said there was evidence that Army officials had exerted "unlawful command influence" when a three-star general turned down Sinclair's offer before the trial. The judge gave defense attorneys the option of renewing Sinclair's original plea offer or making a different one; in any case, he said, the case must be overseen by a new command authority. But Pohl refused to dismiss the charges, which include sexual assault and sodomy.

The evidence cited Monday did not come to light until after Sinclair's accuser, an Army captain, tearfully testified Friday that Sinclair sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her and her family if she disclosed their three-year affair.

Defense attorneys learned of the evidence Saturday night, when prosecutors turned over emails from Army lawyers and the three-star general.

"What we have here is a wrong," Pohl told prosecutors.

If Sinclair's defense offers a new plea, the judge said, a new senior commander would be appointed to review it, and the case would be delayed. If not, he said, Sinclair's court-martial on sexual assault charges and other offenses would proceed. He told the defense to decide by Tuesday morning.

Sinclair's lead lawyer, Richard Scheff, called the ruling "a major win for us."

The revelations threw into turmoil a case that has coincided with intense political and public scrutiny of the way the military responds to allegations of sexual abuse in the ranks. In swiftly removing Sinclair from command and bringing charges after the accuser came forward in 2012, the Army hoped to show that it was cracking down on sex offenders.

The defense has accused the Army of trumping up the charges in response to political pressure to take strong action against a surge of sexual assaults. Now it has a new opportunity to negotiate a plea deal that could eliminate the most serious charges.

In finding evidence of "unlawful command influence," the judge chastised Army prosecutors for waiting until after the court-martial had begun to turn over the emails.

"We're in a rather unusual place," the judge said, referring to litigating pretrial issues in the middle of a court-martial.

Scheff asked the judge to dismiss the sexual assault charges, saying, "This process has been tainted."

Pohl declined.

The judge lashed out at Army prosecutors, asking, "Do we have to wait two months in the middle of the trial before we get these [emails]?"

"When does it end?" Pohl asked the lead government prosecutor, his voice rising. "You dribble discovery to the defense. ... We have hearing after hearing ... and then a little more comes out."

Sinclair, 51, former deputy commander of U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan, pleaded guilty last week to adultery, inappropriate relationships with two other female officers, attempting an inappropriate relationship with a third, impeding an investigation and viewing pornography while on duty. That was a tactical move by the defense to avoid salacious accounts of philandering and pornography, and to focus on attacking the accuser's credibility.

Scheff said Sinclair, who faces up to 15 years in prison for the offenses to which he has pleaded guilty, has the option of withdrawing those pleas.

The general remains charged with sexual assault, sodomy, groping the captain against her will, "open and notorious" sex, and abusing his government credit card in pursuit of trysts with the captain. If convicted on all charges, he faces life in prison.

A Ft. Bragg spokeswoman, citing the virtually unprecedented courtroom events, said Army military lawyers were working late Monday on answers to questions about how a new command authority would be selected. She said they were also looking into the status of the jury panel of five male two-star generals, who were not present for courtroom discussions Monday.

At issue in Monday's hearing was a letter to Lt. Gen. Joseph Anderson, the officer who would decide whether to accept Sinclair's plea offer. In it, a special victim's advocate, Capt. Cassie Fowler, mentioned political risks associated with accepting Sinclair's plea: Doing so "would have an adverse effect on my client and the Army's fight against sexual assault," she wrote.