News

Ashley Madison Names – Leaked Will It Result in Court Martials?

The full article is posted here: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/19/ashley-madison-using-troops-may-have-bonked-their-careers
By Steven Nelson
Americans overwhelmingly believe adultery is morally wrong, but information stolen by hackers from affair-facilitating website AshleyMadison.com – and posted online this week – may result in more than dirty looks and broken relationships for U.S. military personnel.

Court Martial Lawyers – Alexandra González – Waddington & Michael Waddington Attorneys at Law

YouTube video

Sexual assault in the military

That’s because cheating on your spouse is a crime if you’re a member of the military – a potentially worrying detail for operators of nearly 10,000 .mil email addresses that appear to be associated with Ashley Madison accounts.

Military law experts say it’s unlikely many of the troops would receive a court-martial or the maximum penalty of one year in prison and a dishonorable discharge, but believe a wave of lesser, though still severe, consequences is possible.

Adultery, the criminal charge, rarely is the sole basis for a criminal investigation and charges in the military, but that’s not always the case for higher-ranking officials or those dating subordinates or the spouses of colleagues, the experts say.

“When you’re talking about thousands and thousands, it’s probably going to be coming from all ranks, and the disposition may vary based on rank,” says Victor Hansen, a former military prosecutor and defense attorney.

Hansen says he helped quietly resolve adultery investigations against officers about a decade ago and says “the Army’s response typically was to reprimand the officer and quietly retire them, usually at a reduced rank,” resulting in a smaller pension.

Hansen, who now teaches at the New England School of Law, says that probably remains the approach.

Ucmjarticle1201027 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

The military has little interest in seeing the sex lives of officers on the front page of newspapers, he says, and without congressional pressure it’s unlikely military prosecutors “are going to go out and troll the waters of these websites proactively.”

Hansen notes “a lot of this is going to center around proof” and says officers who zealously oppose adultery are likely to be warned off recommending charges against low-level troops on the basis of minimal evidence by their military law advisers.

“That tends to have a particularly dampening effect on a commander who might have a crusade for a particular type of crime,” he says.

Hansen says lower-level members of the military can still get letters of reprimand in their military files. The military generally is an “up or out” organization, and troops unable to be promoted due to misconduct would have few options but to leave.

Richard Rosen, a former commandant of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General’s School, says adultery often was used as an add-on charge for alleged crimes such as rape, but also stemmed from improper officer-subordinate relationships.

“If you have a four-star general who’s on this site, people might feel differently,” he says.

A decision to bring adultery charges under Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice “really depends upon whether the government can show discredit upon the armed forces or that it’s prejudicial to good order and discipline,” he says.

Real Costs of a COURT MARTIAL Conviction and Discharge

YouTube video

“They would have to prove one of those two things,” says Rosen, now a professor at the Texas Tech University School of Law. “So if you have a low-ranking enlisted person, the chances are you aren’t going to get an adultery court martial, but it may be different for a general officer.”

Still, Rosen says ordinary members of the military could tattle on their peers outside the chain of command, kicking off a probe that could result in a letter of reprimand, ending career prospects.

Show Cause Board Lawyer

Show Cause Boards/Administrative Separation Boards

If you are facing an administrative separation or show cause board, then you need the hardest hitting representation possible. At a board, military personnel face:

  1. Losing their career;
  2. Losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in hard earned retirement pay and benefits;
  3. An Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge, hurting their ability to find a job and support their family; and
  4. Losing their reputation and pride.

Military Sexual Assault Defenses : Mistake of Fact Explained by a Military Defense Lawyer

YouTube video

Military defense attorneys

Our attorneys drive a hard bargain and fight to win the best possible outcome for our clients. Our results speak for themselves. Below are cases that we contested in front of boards. In hundreds of other cases we have negotiated deals that have secured favorable discharges, retention, and retirement, thereby avoiding a board all together.

Note: These are examples of real case results. All cases are different. A success in one case does not guarantee success in another similar case. We do not guarantee a certain final outcome, to do so violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

  • U.S. v. Army O-3, Fort McPherson, GA – Soldier accused U.S. v. Army O-3, Fort McPherson, GA – Soldier accused of abandoning her Company Command, adultery, false official statement, falsely claiming that a married E-8 was her husband and supposedly lying in order to get married quarters while on R& R in from Afghanistan. The Army tried to give soldier an Other Than Honorable Discharge (OTH).
    Result: Soldier received an Honorable DischargeRead the full story
  • U.S. v. Air Force O-5, McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey – Air Force attempted to separate client and give him an Other Than Honorable Discharge. Contested case in front of an officer board.
    Result: Client retired with an honorable discharge
  • U.S. Air Force E-6 – Eglin AFB, FL – Avoided court martial. Contested charges at board. Airman received a General Under Honorable Discharge.
  • U.S. v. Navy E-7 with 18 years of service – Jacksonville NAS, FL – Separation board for various sex crimesWe fought the charges in front of a board. Board found that no misconduct occurred. Sailor retained on Active Duty.
  • United States v. O-3 – Conduct unbecoming an officer, Inappropriate relationship with a female GS employee while married. Retained and allowed to PCS.
  • United States v. E-4 – Homosexual conduct. Retained.
  • United States v. E-4 – DUI, Drugs/wrongful use of cocaine, two time PLDC failure, two counts of assault. Suspended discharge and rehabilitative transfer.
  • United States v. E-6 – Personality disorder discharge. Diagnosing psychiatrist testified against soldier. Board found that psychiatrist misdiagnosed the soldier and retained.
  • United States v. E-6 – Failure to meet weight standards. Retained, promoted to E-7.
  • United States v. E-4 – Drugs/wrongful use of methamphetamine. Retained.
  • United States v. E-7 with 25 years – Wrongful use of cocaine. Retained, allowed to retire.
  • United States v. E-4 – Drug use, aggravated assault with an ax handle in Kuwait. Awarded Honorable Discharge.
  • United States v. CW2 – Fraternization, Adultery, Violation of a Regulation, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. Retained.
  • United States v. E-7 (Recruiter) – Drugs/wrongful use of cocaine x 4, dereliction of duty. Awarded Honorable Discharge.
  • United States v. E-7 with 21 years – Drugs/wrongful use of cocaine. Retained, allowed to retire.
  • United States v. E-7 – Fraternization, adultery, false official statement (to an O-6 in front of his entire staff), conduct unbecoming, and fraud. Avoided court martial and took it to a board. Won a General, Under Honorable Conditions Discharge, rather than Other than Honorable (OTH) at the board. Soldier was able to re-join the Army and will retire.

Representing Guilty Clients : How do defense lawyers sleep at night?

YouTube video

Military Defense Counsel and Conflicts of Interest

Military Defense Counsel and Conflicts of Interest

Choosing the Best Military Lawyers for Your Case

Ucmjarticle1201028 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Sometimes, service members accused of crimes in the military will call and say that they are not really sure about their military lawyer, the lawyer that they were appointed in their case. And one of the things that they, that they are unsure about is that they see this lawyer hanging out with, socializing with, sometimes out drinking with, hanging out with, partying with the prosecution or their Commander.\

Whether or not you want to stick with that lawyer is a personal choice. Often in the JAG Corps, the defense is forced to socialize at certain events with the prosecutors in the JAG Corps. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when, when it goes beyond socializing at a military function as a military ball, I mean, everybody has to go to that and socialize.

Military sex crime attorneys

But, if you see your military defense counsel out at a bar with the prosecutor, your Commander, drinking and it looks like he’s friends with that person, you might wanna confront him about that because there could be a potential conflict of interest. You don’t really want to have an attorney who’s drinking buddies with the same person who’s trying to throw you in jail. That’s generally not a good idea.    

What are Collateral Consequences of SEX OFFENDER Registration?

YouTube video

Soldier Avoids Discharge – Gets 30 Days in Korea Brawl

Stars And Stripes
By Ashley Rowland, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Wednesday, October 7, 2009

SEOUL — A sergeant at U.S. Army Garrison-Yongsan was sentenced Monday to 30 days of confinement and a reduction in rank to E-3 for hitting two other soldiers during a street brawl outside an Itaewon nightclub in February in which two soldiers were severely beaten and one was stabbed.

False Accusations of Sexual Assault in the Military & Why Are They So Common?

YouTube video

Military Intelligence Brigade

Ucmjarticle1201039 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Sgt. MJ, of the 501st Military Intelligence Brigade, was charged with one specification of making a false official statement and two specifications of felony aggravated assault with means likely to produce death or grievous bodily injury for allegedly beating two soldiers with a beer bottle. He faced 11 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

As part of a plea bargain, he pleaded guilty to and was convicted of two lesser offenses of misdemeanor assault consummated by battery. The false official statement charge was dropped.

Joyner, who was tried by military judge alone, was also sentenced to a forfeiture in pay of $300 per month for three months.

One soldier was stabbed in the chest during the Feb. 1 fight outside the popular King Club. An altercation started inside the club and spilled onto the street after police emptied the club.

Joyner testified during an Article 32 hearing in July that he got involved in the fight to defend his twin brother, Spc. Markelle Joyner, after he was allegedly attacked by Pvt. Matthew Bonham, who sustained deep cuts and bruises in the incident.

But on Monday, Sgt. Joyner said in the court-martial that he didn’t act in self-defense or to defend anyone else. Joyner’s civilian attorney, Michael Waddington, said outside court that Joyner had been defending his brother during the first part of the fight but not during the entire fight.

Spc. Markelle Joyner was to be court-martialed Tuesday on charges of assault and making false official statements.

Closing Arguments Examples : Kick-Ass Closing Arguments Part 1: Closing Argument Template

YouTube video

Unlawful Command Influence – So What, the Case Will Go Forward

The Wright case moves towards trial

Ucmjarticle1201029 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

by Zachary D Spilman

This blog is reposted from caaflog.com/2015/08/13/the-wright-case-moves-towards-trial/

What are Collateral Consequences of SEX OFFENDER Registration?

YouTube video

The Wright case is an Air Force sexual assault prosecution that was dismissed last year by Air Force Lieutenant General Craig Franklin. After General Franklin dismissed the charges, authority over the case was transferred to Air Force District of Washington in Maryland, new charges were preferred, a second Article 32 pretrial investigation was conducted, and the charges were referred to trial. Litigation of defense claims of unlawful command influence followed, and the trial judge eventually abated the proceedings after the Government asserted an attorney-client privilege over documents sought by the defense in connection with those claims. The Government appealed that abatement and the AFCCA reversed, finding that the military judge’s findings were incomplete.

I discussed the AFCCA’s decision in this post. I summarized our past coverage in this post.

Now Stars and Stripes report here that the case will proceed to trial despite a finding of improper influence by senior Air Force officials:

Lt. Col. Joshua Kastenberg, in a July 30 ruling in response to a defense motion to dismiss the case against Airman 1st Class Brandon T. Wright, found that Lt. Gen. Richard Harding, formerly the Air Force Judge Advocate General, had improperly influenced the case or had given the appearance of doing so.

Sexual assault in the military

Ucmjarticle1201031 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

One such instance, the judge ruled, was recommending that Wright’s case be transferred to another court-martial convening authority for a do-over after the first convening authority, Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, dismissed the case in the summer of 2013. Franklin’s dismissal came after an Article 32 investigative hearing at Aviano Air Base, Italy.

Such transfers are almost unheard of. It happened in the Wright case, Kastenberg’s ruling says, in part because Harding was worried that “the failure to have charges preferred against SrA Wright would enable Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to gain needed votes on a pending bill to remove commanders from the court-martial process.”

Yet none of these actions affected the current case against Wright, Kastenberg said, because all parties involved in the second investigation — at the Air Force District of Washington — acted independently, with no unlawful command influence. As a result of that investigation, a convening authority sent the case to court-martial.

DeAndre Jones False Sexual Assault Allegations

YouTube video

Aiken County Deputies Bust An Atlanta Man For 22-Pounds Of Pot

Nbc
By Danielle Johnson, NBC

August 16, 2007

Aiken County deputies arrested a man from Atlanta after they found thousands of dollars in marijuana in his rental car. It happened Sunday morning at the intersection of Old Edgefield and Atomic Roads in North Augusta.

Bestmilitarydefenseucmjdefenselawyer73 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At LawAiken County investigators say Kelvin Spencer of Atlanta had just pulled off from filling his tank at this gas station Sunday morning. That’s when a deputy noticed the rental car he was driving didn’t have a license plate.

After pulling Spencer over, the deputy say he smelled a strong odor from the car. He then checked the trunk, in it more than 22-thousand dollars worth of marijuana. Spencer was immediately arrested and charged with drug trafficking.

Court martial lawyers

“I was surprised because I thought they cleaned up the area over here,” says Brenda Young.

Brenda Young just moved back to this neighborhood to raise her two daughters. She left it 10 years ago because of drug activity had escalated.

“Especially in this area it was real bad. You could hardly walk out the door without somebody trying to sell you something,” she says.

While neighbors are relieved about the arrest, others say the problem is going away fast enough and want more to be done.

“I would like to see them patrol more cause it’s different now,” says another neighbor.

Why Spencer was in the area is still under investigation. He’s being held at the Aiken County Detention Center awaiting a bond hearing. He could face charges in Atlanta as well.

Fake Sex Assault Victims Deserve Protection

Innocent Men Convicted of Sexual Assault are “Collateral Damage” in the military’s “War on Sexual Assault”

Ucmjarticle1201031 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

What is more important?
1) Protecting military members who are falsely accused of sexual assault; or

2) Protecting alleged victims, including those making false allegations?

marine corps why not protect the innocent and abide by the US Constitution which every military member has sworn to support and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic?

Military leadership should be able to support the Constitutional Rights of service members AND protect victims. Supporting the Constitution and Due Process, above all else, would protect the accused and actual victims. It would also prevent false convictions.

Representing Guilty Clients : How do defense lawyers sleep at night?

YouTube video

Military defense attorneys

According to Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Bryan Battaglia, the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, protecting all alleged victims, including those making false allegations, is more important than protecting innocent men.

As one of the top enlisted in the US military, he should put as much emphasis on protecting the Constitution as he does on protecting lying “victims.”

In the current military, you are guilty once accused of sexual assault, regardless of the evidence. Your best chance of escaping a false sexual allegation is to hire the best team of civilian defense lawyers as you can afford. Even then, there are no guarantees because the military will do whatever it takes to win… regardless of your actual innocence. The military leadership wants as many convictions as possible to prove to Congress that they take sex assault seriously. If convicting innocent men helps their cause, then so be it. This is what the military calls “Collateral Damage.”

I have yet to see a military leader step forward and voice concerns about the number of innocent men put on trial.

Nobody questions why so many men are being acquitted of sexual assault at trial. It’s a no brainer – the military is putting hundreds of innocent men on trial every year. Some actually get convicted.

If a senior leader dared to question why so many innocent men were being sent to court martial, he would be fired and forced to retire.

I have handled dozens of cases where the alleged victim is caught in outright lies, recants, admits on the stand that they are not a victim (but the SARC and JAG told them they were a victim), some change their bogus stories over and over again… and these people are still considered “victims” and receive VA benefits for life, choice of assignments, and other special treatment, such as not having to take on certain jobs. NOTE: I am talking about women that lie and make up allegations of sexual assault, not actual crime victims. It’s sad and should make any parent think twice before they take their child to the recruiter to enlist.

Here an excerpt from aDoD News interview with Sgt Maj Bryan Battaglia.
SEAC Seeks Sexual Assault Investigation Improvements
By Amaani Lyle
DoD News, Defense Media Activity

Ucmjarticle1201032 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

WASHINGTON, Nov. 21, 2014 – The senior enlisted advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussed today efforts to bolster the Defense Department’s investigative techniques and expertise in amassing sexual assault and sexual harassment case evidence….

“Our first and foremost priority is protecting the victim, but also allowing the alleged perpetrator their due justice because the last thing we’d want to do is place a commander in a position who has court martial or Article 15 authority to convict an innocent person,” Battaglia said.

Still, Battaglia asserts that abating sexual assault is a challenge all military people must take on.

“We make every attempt to engage everyone in helping to [stop] sexual assault and sexual harassment within the armed forces,” the sergeant major said, adding that he can personally attest to the commitment of Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in tackling the issue.

Battaglia said that in addition to honing investigative techniques, DoD officials used social media to craft a survey targeted toward the enlisted force that gauges both restricted and unrestricted reporting metrics.

With support from Congress, he added, the Defense Department will submit a report to the White House later this year as to how commanders are engaged in adjudication and the critical need for evidence.

“We will stay on it until we solve it,” the sergeant major said.

Court Martial Lawyers – Alexandra González – Waddington & Michael Waddington Attorneys at Law

YouTube video

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123706

Judge Questions First Trial

Augusta Chronicle Small LogoJudge Questions First Trial
Attorneys told to outline sides of slaying verdicts
By Sandy Hodson, Staff Writer
Thursday, May 17, 2007

The judge who will decide if six men convicted in one of Augusta’s biggest criminal trials in 2001 are entitled to new trials focused prosecutors’ and defense attorneys’ attention Wednesday on three potential trouble spots in the original trial.

Criminal Defense Lawyers

Bestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys9.57.06Pm Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

It was a complicated Richmond County Superior Court racketeering case. Six men were convicted of playing various roles in a criminal enterprise that included a double homicide. In addition, two of the defendants also faced charges associated with the brutal 1998 slaying of Sam’s Club Manager David Holt.

At the end of the two-day hearing Wednesday, Judge Neal W. Dickert outlined those points he had the most questions about, beginning with the combination of the Sam’s Club crimes and the racketeering case.

Judge Dickert, who inherited the case from Senior Judge Bernard J. Mulherin Sr., said he wanted to hear what prosecutors thought was right and the defendants’ attorneys thought was wrong about the trial judge’s refusal to split the case.

In addition, he pressed the sides to stake their positions on what more, if anything, should happen because potentially damning evidence arose for the first time in a closing statement.
Judge Dickert also asked the attorneys to weigh in about District Attorney Danny Craig’s attack on one of the defendants for deciding not to present an expected alibi.

Carlston Coleman, Ronald Coleman, Jarman Harold, Charles D. Winters, Kendric Dudley and Ronnie B. Overton were each convicted of violating the state’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. That charge included aspects of the July 1997 slayings of two young men, Ryan J. Singh and Manuel B. Arroyo.

The Colemans, who are not related, were the only defendants accused and convicted of the Sam’s Club crimes.

Murder charges have never been filed in Aiken County, where Mr. Holt’s remains were found in the trunk of his burning car, or in Warren County, where the remains of Mr. Singh and Mr. Arroyo were found in the trunk of a burned car.

Judge Dickert set a schedule for when attorneys are required to submit their positions in writing. After a transcript of this week’s hearing is prepared, the defendants’ attorneys have 60 days. The prosecution will have 30 more days to respond. Once he receives all the briefs, Judge Dickert will decide if any of the defendants are entitled to a new trial.

The Colemans, who are serving two life sentences plus 65 years, are now represented by Barbara Claridge and Michael Waddington.

Mr. Harold, Mr. Winters, Mr. Dudley and Mr. Overton – who are now serving 20-year prison sentences – are now represented by attorneys William Sussman, Jeannie Hyatt, William M. Fleming and Randolph Frails, respectively.

Lawyer fights to win his battles

Bagram Prison Abuse Scandal

Lawyer Fights To Win His Battles Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Court Martial Lawyers – Alexandra González – Waddington & Michael Waddington Attorneys at Law

YouTube video

 

Bagram Detain Abuse Overview

According to US and Afghan officials, KABUL — The US military has begun investigating allegations that two Afghan teenagers were beaten by guards in a secret detention center on Bagram Air Force Base last year. Human Rights Today has called on the United States government to respond to new allegations that Afghan detainees have been mistreated in a secret prison at Bagram Air Force Base.

American-run prison houses about 700 inmates

The detention center described by the teens appears to be a facility managed by US Special Forces, separate from Bagram Theater Detention Facility. This main American-run prison houses about 700 inmates. The teens’ accounts of the detention center coincide with those of two other former detainees who said they suffered similar mistreatment, if not beatings, while detained last year in Bagram, which Afghans call a “black prison.” US military officials took statements of two Afghan teenagers over the past month and are in contact with others who say they were held at a secret detention center at Bagram Air Force Base.

The latest allegations in Afghanistan fit a pattern of allegations of brutal treatment of former Guantanamo detainees and Afghans held by the US, reported first last year by the Guardian. Documents obtained by Guardian contain evidence that such abuse had occurred in the main prison of Bagram near Kabul city and a smaller US facility located in the southern city of Kandahar. In December 2002, two Afghan detainees died in Bagram Air Force Base; their deaths were declared a homicide by a US military doctor who conducted autopsies. Defense Department officials said they launched an investigation into the deaths in March 2003 and another Afghan died in another detention facility in Asadabad near Kunar Province. However, human Rights Watch is concerned that the investigation findings were never made public and that appropriate criminal sanctions never took place.

Synonymous with torture and ill-treatment of detainees

Like Guantanamo, Bagram, the US detention center on its vast airbase in Afghanistan, has become synonymous with torture and ill-treatment of detainees. Although some of the US Government’s most brutal torture practices have been inflicted on detainees at the Bagram Detention Centre, allegations of maltreatment and abuse continue to surface, even though only two detainees have died. Incidents of mistreatment of detainees at Bagram in 2002, including details of the deaths, were reported to American officials, who described them as isolated issues that needed to be investigated.

During this time, two Afghan prisoners, Habibullah and Dilawar, who had been hanged on their wrists, were tortured in December 2002 by US soldiers in the Bagram prison to death. Two other detainees held in late 2002 at Bagram Detention Center told a New York Times reporter they had been tied, deprived of sleep, and beaten while standing for weeks. Although, in December 2014, the United States handed over control of Bagram, a US detention center near its vast airbase in Afghanistan that has become synonymous with torture and ill-treatment of detainees, to Afghan security forces, it shirked responsibility for the men held there.

Allegations of torture and murder

All the allegations of torture and murder took place in the military prison known as the Bagram Theater, an internment facility erected by the Soviets as an aircraft machinery factory during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1980-1989. Although the US government ended brutal torture, the military continued to maintain secret “black prisons” where detainees were subjected to sleep deprivation, cold, forced nudity, and other abuses, and where detainees were cut from their families and lawyers. In addition, the website reported that the CIA tortured and code-named horrific abuses in four prisons in Afghanistan used by the CIA in 2004, one of which served as Bagram Air Base, a separate site from the Military prison where the abuses took place.

In January 2010, the US military released the names of all 645 detainees held at Bagram main prison, despite their long-standing position on releasing such information. Bagram was a collection and clearinghouse for captured detainees in Afghanistan. Up to 40 and 80 detainees were held for interrogation and eventual transfer to the Pentagon’s Long-Term Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Report is significant as the first official response

The report is significant as the first official response from the US government to the allegations of widespread abuse of detainees in Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Two Afghan teenagers held in US captivity in Kabul for years, Abdul Rashid, who said he was just 16 years old, said in interviews that they were beaten and slapped by their captors at the Bagram Air Base were held in solitary confinement. In addition, Joshua Claus Claus Claus was charged with assault, mistreating a detainee, and making false statements to investigators for his participation in interrogation that led to the death of an Afghan detainee in December 2002 at Bagram Air Force Base.

Army Special Forces colonel found NOT GUILTY of Sexual Assault

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (WTVD) — Army Special Forces Col. KR is a free man after being found not guilty on all charges. After a three day trial, the jury found him not guilty on all five sexual

Col. KR was acquitted of sexual assault charges Thursday. (Army)

A Special Forces officer who faced sexual assault charges at a military court-martial this week was found not guilty on each of the charges Thursday.

Army Special Forces

The eight-man panel that included seven colonels and a brigadier general found Col. KR not guilty of sexually assaulting an Air Force captain who was on the same deployment with him in 2015 to Pakistan.

“We did have faith that the military panel would come to the right decision. We knew what evidence we had and what the truth was. We’re pleased with the verdict,” said defense attorney Michael Waddington. “The government’s two-star witnesses were people known for lying, pathological lying and manipulation. They both have lied under oath repeatedly.”

The accuser, an Air Force reservist, took the stand Wednesday in Fort Bragg’s second judiciary circuit court. She admitted to the court that she hung out with KR, planned KR’s farewell party and had sexual relations with him several times after the alleged sexual assault.

The pair worked together at the U.S. Embassy.

KR, who testified Wednesday that sex with the captain was consensual, pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. Those charges included whether he sexually assaulted the woman and whether he sexually assaulted her while she was asleep, impaired or unable to provide consent and whether he kissed the woman while she was incapacitated, impaired or with the intent for arousal.

During closing arguments, Waddington said he did not think prosecutors provided evidence to support the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Maj. Stacy Gutarz Cohen, who represented the prosecution, repeated the woman’s testimony in which she alleged that she went to an establishment with KR on June 5, 2015, and could not remember much from that night after having two drinks that KR brought her.

The woman alleged that she woke to KR having sex with her.

KR testified Wednesday that the woman was coherent when she came into his room that night and initiated the sex.

The woman testified Wednesday that she had sex with KR and his housemate, an Army captain, prior to and after the alleged assault.

Both men were married at the time.

The Army captain alleged during his testimony Tuesday that all three left the establishment together in June 2015 and when they returned to the house, he and KR carried the woman upstairs.

The captain, who was granted immunity of his own affair allegations for his testimony, said the woman was not coherent and alleged he saw KR kiss her.

KR said the woman walked up the stairs on her own and all three went to bed after a short conversation in the hallway.

On Thursday, Waddington reminded the panel that the woman said she had sex with the Army captain later the same morning of the alleged assault.

Waddington alleged the woman and captain lied about the story.

What Is Sexual Harassment?

He questioned why she had sex with KR after the alleged assault, went to dinner with him, helped organize two parties for him after the alleged assault, went on a group hike with him that was photographed after the alleged assault or had sex with him the day he left Pakistan.

Waddington questioned why she provided text messages to investigators from March, April, May, and July between her and KR but none from the month of the alleged assault.

He questioned her credibility as a witness because he said she later maintained an on-again, off-again relationship with the Army captain, but “used ploys” to keep the relationship going, which included lying about having had cancer.

“We had faith that the military panel would come to the right decision,” Waddington said. “We knew what evidence we had and what the truth was, so we’re pleased with the verdict.”

Skip to content