Attorney in rape case wants integrity

0 Comments | Gazette, The (Colorado Springs), Apr 17, 2004 | by PAM ZUBECK THE GAZETTE

A civilian attorney arguing an Air Force Academy rape case urged a military judge to assure the public that court decisions aren't made by top brass, the media or Congress.

"Restore the integrity of the process and show the American public that a judge can be independent and courageous," defense attorney Frank Spinner said Friday.

His comments came during arguments alleging the appearance of unlawful command influence caused a commander to order to trial the first cadet charged with rape since a sexassault scandal erupted in January 2003.

Command influence claims are rare, particularly when they aim so high in the chain of command.

Military judge Col. Barbara Brand, expected to rule by mid-May, set a June 7 trial date in case she denies the motion to dismiss charges against Douglas Meester.

Meester also is charged with forcible sodomy, indecent assault and conduct unbecoming by providing alcohol to a minor in connection with an Oct. 18, 2002, dorm drinking party. Meester, a sophomore who's on leave, and a female freshman cadet, who since has left the academy, had sex after she drank seven shots of tequila and kissed him.

Meester was ordered to trial in June by Commandant of Cadets Brig. Gen. John Weida, whose decision conflicted with two recommendations against court-martial.

Weida, acting for the first time as a general court-martial convening authority, was one of four academy leaders installed after their predecessors were swept out by Air Force Secretary James Roche and Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper in response to the scandal.

Spinner reminded Brand of the environment in May, June and July 2003 when the public was in an uproar and the Senate Armed Services Committee was "raking Roche and Jumper across the coals" for the scandal.

It was a time when the "Bring Me Men" sign leading to the academy's Terrazzo was dismantled in one day, and the academy's former leaders were under heavy criticism for not seeking rape convictions.

"Nobody knew who was getting fired next," he said.

In support of his motion, Spinner cited:

c A May 16 meeting -- two days after Meester's evidentiary hearing -- attended by Roche, Jumper, Rosa and Weida at the Pentagon. All testified in depositions they couldn't recall topics discussed. The meeting came after a staffer's submittal to Roche of a cavalcade of press reports about Meester's hearing.

c An Oct. 3 meeting of the same people -- six days before Roche denied Meester's request to resign instead of facing trial. Again, no one could remember what was said.

A May 17 e-mail from Roche to an Air Force official saying, "Take that, Sen. (Wayne) Allard. Look at the vigor with which the Air Force is prosecuting." Allard is a member of the Senate committee, which was demanding that Roche hold people accountable and seek harsher punishment for accused offenders.

c Jumper told some academy leaders to send e-mail messages to his home address, not the office, to avoid public scrutiny through the Freedom of Information Act, Spinner said. "He knew how to communicate... off the record if he wanted to."

c At an early April hearing before the Senate committee, Roche said, "We told them (new leaders) their career was going to be on the line."

"That was the context," Spinner said, "(in which) Gen. Weida became commandant of the U.S. Air Force Academy. He was stepping into the shoes of (former officers) who were being accused of mishandling this case."

Government attorney Maj. John Taitt argued that Rosa, Weida, Roche and Jumper testified in depositions they had no discussions about Meester's case. Why would they risk their integrity, reputations and careers to influence one case? he asked.

"They're taking a bunch of random events and saying, 'ah ha,'" he said, accusing the defense team presenting innuendo as evidence.

He said Roche repeatedly -- to the Senate and to others -- emphasized "there are two sides to every story" and "due process (for the accused) is critical." That demonstrates he didn't have a preconceived notion about the Meester case or a desire to impose his will on academy leaders, Taitt argued.

Taitt alleged the defense "bootstrapped" its argument that Meester was being made a scapegoat into socalled evidence of public concern about command influence.

Spinner countered that MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews," aired the day after Meester's May hearing, raised questions about politics, with one panelist saying the government was "trying to use this guy like a voodoo doll for all the angry feelings" stirred up by the alleged victims.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to prevail Spinner must show "some evidence" of an appearance of unlawful command influence. If he's successful, the burden of proof shifts to the government, which can prevail only by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that influence did not exist or if it did that it had no bearing on the case.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0238 or zubeck@gazette.com