Top Appeals Court Upends Navy SEAL Conviction, Citing Unlawful Command Influence by Senior JAG
In a split 3-2 vote, the military’s appellate court yesterday threw out a rape conviction and prison sentence of Navy SEAL SCPO Keith Barry, contending that top legal officers worried about the service’s reputation for handling alleged sexual assault cases had tainted the case.
In a 43-page brief reversing the lower courts’ decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissed the case “with prejudice,” so the government cannot renew the same charges against Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (SEAL) Keith E. Barry. Barry had maintained his innocence throughout the case, which began in 2014 when he was charged with two counts of rape for alleged non-consensual sex with his girlfriend. At a general court-martial, a military judge convicted him on one count and sentenced him to three years’ confinement, reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge. Barry served his 3 year sentence, is now free an is an appellant without pay, pending an outcome regarding restoration of his rank, pay and allowances.
In a landmark decision Wednesday, the military’s highest court ruled that the Navy’s top lawyer, Vice Adm. James W. Crawford III, illegally meddled in the case of a SEAL accused of rape. The split 3-2 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces tosses out the highly decorated commando’s 2014 court-martial conviction and bars the armed forces from ever trying him again. In the decision, it also noted that Crawford's boss at the time, VICE ADMIRAL Nanette M. DeRenzi also exercised undue influence during the trial.
The legal victory of Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator Keith E. Barry — who never quit proclaiming his innocence — will ripple across the entire military.
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Scott W. Stucky, a retired Air Force colonel, determined that not only can the military’s most senior attorneys be held responsible for bogus advice that helps to unlawfully coerce a prosecution but that Crawford “actually did so in this case."
Called the “mortal enemy of military justice,” unlawful command influence, or UCI, occurs when superiors utter words or take actions that wrongfully influence the outcome of court-martial cases, jeopardize the appellate process or undermine the public’s confidence in the armed forces by appearing to tip the scales of justice.
The long and the short of it is this. Sailor has a brief relationship between late 2012 and early 2013. Barry believed it to be merely sexual, but she believed their four encounters were leading to love. and then calls it quits. Ex girl friend goes to authorities after and claims she was raped multiple times. Case is tried. Barry is convicted. During the sentencing phase, then Rear Admiral Patrick J. Lorge, presiding, had conversations with Crawford about the trial. Lorge had the authority to affirm or overturn the military judge’s verdict against Barry. He had reservations about the case and felt there was not enough evidence provided by the Navy, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict. In both sworn affidavits and testimony during a special hearing convened Lorge said that he felt political pressure on “many fronts” from civilian and military leaders to convict Barry. He was advised by Cmdr. Dominic Jones and Lt. Cmdr. Jon Dowling to put the hammer down on Barry to give the appearance that the Navy was cracking down on sexual assault. Judge Advocate General of the Navy Vice Adm. Nanette DeRenzi and then-Rear Adm. James Crawford III, reminded him of the importance of taking a hard stance against sexual assault while he was making his decision. He considered vacating the verdict or granting clemency to Barry, but instead, let stand a sentence of three years confinement and a dishonorable discharge, a decision he came to regret.
CPO Barry filed his military appeals. His second appeal was heard in 2016 and the conviction was upheld. However........Barry's petition for a review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was approved on April 27, 2017. In May, 2017. Lorge provided sworn testimony to the appeals court about his reservations and undue pressure. Another judge, from outside the Navy, was assigned to review and investigate. The judge was Chief Air Force Judge Colonel Vance Spath, who submitted his finding to the appeals court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces then dismissed the case “with prejudice"
And it seems, the issue of cover up and undue influence continues.........
“Perhaps certain members of Congress do not like the optics of the Navy presenting a robust defense to a sailor accused of rape,” David Sheldon, Barry’s civilian attorney, told The Washington Times. “There is a reason why the command influence occurred in this case. It’s because the Navy has buckled under to congressional pressure in sexual assault cases at the expense of sailors’ constitutional rights.” Earlier this year Barry’s legal team formally accused Vice Adm. James W. Crawford III, the Navy’s judge advocate general and highest-ranking lawyer, of exercising illegal command influence in the SEAL’s 2014 trial. The defense motion states that the Barry legal team’s July 31 questioning of Adm. Crawford at the Pentagon spurred the Navy to counterattack by seeking to disqualify Barry’s naval attorneys. They noted that the move came just one day after Adm. Crawford was interviewed, not during the previous 41 days the case had been open.
Last year, the admiral’s lawyers had asked a judge to disqualify Barry’s three judge advocates (JAGs), alleging that they improperly “self-detailed” themselves to the high-profile case. Asked by The Times to respond to the allegations, Patty Babb, a spokeswoman for Adm. Crawford, said: “The Barry case has been forwarded to a new convening authority, senior to the original convening authority, and the fact-finding process is underway. The Navy remains, as always, dedicated to pursuing justice in a fair and impartial system. To preserve the integrity of that process, the Navy will not comment further on the case.”
Yeah, no pressure there........
In a subsequent, more expansive affidavit dated Sept. 21, 2017, Lorge wrote he had no other recourse, an erroneous belief stemming from incorrect advice from his staff judge advocate that he lacked authority to disapprove the conviction and sentence.
“At the time, the political climate regarding sexual assault in the military was such that a decision to disapprove the findings, regardless of merit, could bring hate and discontent on the Navy from the President, as well as senators including Senator Kristen Gillibrand. I was also generally aware of cases from other services that became high profile and received extreme negative attention because the convening authorities upset guilty findings in sexual assault cases,” he wrote in the September 2017, affidavit. “I perceived that if I were to disapprove the findings in this case, it could adversely affect the Navy.”
Crawford (Left) is due to retire this month and DeRenzi (Right) has already retired. Crawford's retirement should be put on hold and DeRenzi should be brought back to answer questions.
This entire saga stinks to no end....from the initial charges until now, and everything in between. Sound familiar?
In a split 3-2 vote, the military’s appellate court yesterday threw out a rape conviction and prison sentence of Navy SEAL SCPO Keith Barry, contending that top legal officers worried about the service’s reputation for handling alleged sexual assault cases had tainted the case.
In a 43-page brief reversing the lower courts’ decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissed the case “with prejudice,” so the government cannot renew the same charges against Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator (SEAL) Keith E. Barry. Barry had maintained his innocence throughout the case, which began in 2014 when he was charged with two counts of rape for alleged non-consensual sex with his girlfriend. At a general court-martial, a military judge convicted him on one count and sentenced him to three years’ confinement, reduction in rank and a dishonorable discharge. Barry served his 3 year sentence, is now free an is an appellant without pay, pending an outcome regarding restoration of his rank, pay and allowances.
In a landmark decision Wednesday, the military’s highest court ruled that the Navy’s top lawyer, Vice Adm. James W. Crawford III, illegally meddled in the case of a SEAL accused of rape. The split 3-2 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces tosses out the highly decorated commando’s 2014 court-martial conviction and bars the armed forces from ever trying him again. In the decision, it also noted that Crawford's boss at the time, VICE ADMIRAL Nanette M. DeRenzi also exercised undue influence during the trial.
The legal victory of Senior Chief Special Warfare Operator Keith E. Barry — who never quit proclaiming his innocence — will ripple across the entire military.
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Scott W. Stucky, a retired Air Force colonel, determined that not only can the military’s most senior attorneys be held responsible for bogus advice that helps to unlawfully coerce a prosecution but that Crawford “actually did so in this case."
Called the “mortal enemy of military justice,” unlawful command influence, or UCI, occurs when superiors utter words or take actions that wrongfully influence the outcome of court-martial cases, jeopardize the appellate process or undermine the public’s confidence in the armed forces by appearing to tip the scales of justice.
The long and the short of it is this. Sailor has a brief relationship between late 2012 and early 2013. Barry believed it to be merely sexual, but she believed their four encounters were leading to love. and then calls it quits. Ex girl friend goes to authorities after and claims she was raped multiple times. Case is tried. Barry is convicted. During the sentencing phase, then Rear Admiral Patrick J. Lorge, presiding, had conversations with Crawford about the trial. Lorge had the authority to affirm or overturn the military judge’s verdict against Barry. He had reservations about the case and felt there was not enough evidence provided by the Navy, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict. In both sworn affidavits and testimony during a special hearing convened Lorge said that he felt political pressure on “many fronts” from civilian and military leaders to convict Barry. He was advised by Cmdr. Dominic Jones and Lt. Cmdr. Jon Dowling to put the hammer down on Barry to give the appearance that the Navy was cracking down on sexual assault. Judge Advocate General of the Navy Vice Adm. Nanette DeRenzi and then-Rear Adm. James Crawford III, reminded him of the importance of taking a hard stance against sexual assault while he was making his decision. He considered vacating the verdict or granting clemency to Barry, but instead, let stand a sentence of three years confinement and a dishonorable discharge, a decision he came to regret.
CPO Barry filed his military appeals. His second appeal was heard in 2016 and the conviction was upheld. However........Barry's petition for a review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces was approved on April 27, 2017. In May, 2017. Lorge provided sworn testimony to the appeals court about his reservations and undue pressure. Another judge, from outside the Navy, was assigned to review and investigate. The judge was Chief Air Force Judge Colonel Vance Spath, who submitted his finding to the appeals court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces then dismissed the case “with prejudice"
And it seems, the issue of cover up and undue influence continues.........
“Perhaps certain members of Congress do not like the optics of the Navy presenting a robust defense to a sailor accused of rape,” David Sheldon, Barry’s civilian attorney, told The Washington Times. “There is a reason why the command influence occurred in this case. It’s because the Navy has buckled under to congressional pressure in sexual assault cases at the expense of sailors’ constitutional rights.” Earlier this year Barry’s legal team formally accused Vice Adm. James W. Crawford III, the Navy’s judge advocate general and highest-ranking lawyer, of exercising illegal command influence in the SEAL’s 2014 trial. The defense motion states that the Barry legal team’s July 31 questioning of Adm. Crawford at the Pentagon spurred the Navy to counterattack by seeking to disqualify Barry’s naval attorneys. They noted that the move came just one day after Adm. Crawford was interviewed, not during the previous 41 days the case had been open.
Last year, the admiral’s lawyers had asked a judge to disqualify Barry’s three judge advocates (JAGs), alleging that they improperly “self-detailed” themselves to the high-profile case. Asked by The Times to respond to the allegations, Patty Babb, a spokeswoman for Adm. Crawford, said: “The Barry case has been forwarded to a new convening authority, senior to the original convening authority, and the fact-finding process is underway. The Navy remains, as always, dedicated to pursuing justice in a fair and impartial system. To preserve the integrity of that process, the Navy will not comment further on the case.”
Yeah, no pressure there........
In a subsequent, more expansive affidavit dated Sept. 21, 2017, Lorge wrote he had no other recourse, an erroneous belief stemming from incorrect advice from his staff judge advocate that he lacked authority to disapprove the conviction and sentence.
“At the time, the political climate regarding sexual assault in the military was such that a decision to disapprove the findings, regardless of merit, could bring hate and discontent on the Navy from the President, as well as senators including Senator Kristen Gillibrand. I was also generally aware of cases from other services that became high profile and received extreme negative attention because the convening authorities upset guilty findings in sexual assault cases,” he wrote in the September 2017, affidavit. “I perceived that if I were to disapprove the findings in this case, it could adversely affect the Navy.”
Crawford (Left) is due to retire this month and DeRenzi (Right) has already retired. Crawford's retirement should be put on hold and DeRenzi should be brought back to answer questions.
This entire saga stinks to no end....from the initial charges until now, and everything in between. Sound familiar?
