Naval Academy rape case could induce changes in the military hearings

The grill of a female Cadet Naval Academy of the United States, allegedly sexually assaulted by classmates, during a preliminary article 32 military hearing could lead to changes in the way in which such hearings are conducted.Susan Burke, Attorney for the Midshipmen, told NBC News "he met directly with members of Congress in these reform efforts," in light of the 30 hours of questioning, sometimes invasive with relevance only tangential to the case, their client was subjected to during the week and half long hearing.The authorization Act of national defence currently before Congress contains an amendment to the uniform code of military justice that would limit the purpose of the article 32 preliminary hearing to "determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offence has been committed and the defendant committed the crime".Currently, there is no limit to the amount of time and the scope of the questioning in an article 32, which is similar to a civilian grand jury hearing. In this case in particular during the summer, the female cadet who was allegedly assaulted was probed about details that included wide opened his mouth during oral sex and if wearing underwear.The amendment in the Bill NDAA would also be optional for a complainant witness to testify.Burke, a well-known advocate for reforming the way the military prosecute sexual assault whose work is the subject of the documentary "The Invisible war", said its customer experience was only the latest - and most high profile - example of those hard interrogation."The same thing that crossed this midshipman, scores have been going through the same type of abusive process." Highlight brought it home what we were saying about all these problems, "he said.Representative Jackie Speier, D - Calif., co-sponsor of the version of the amendment of article 32 of the NDAA House, said he spoke with Burke for two hours after his interrogation of the female Cadet."She's a rock star for what concerns me," said Speier of Burke. "It is a major reason why all this is happening."The version of the House of the NDAA is expected to be voted on Friday, hoping that the Senate may vote the week next, by the Chairmen of the House and Senate armed services committees.Lawyers of the two Midshipmen - Eric Graham and Joshua Tate - face courts martial for allegedly raping the female Cadet told Burke he was more interested in the development of the media and legislative attention rough way lawyers questioned him in article 32 that in the search for Justice for his client.Defense attorneys have said murky testimony of the female Cadet, tarnished by the inconsistencies and, sometimes, an apparent reluctance to continue - at some point during the trial said that he does not believe that the two men were "criminals" and that it had gone along with the audience to find out if it had in fact violated - rather than to convict them of something believed that they had made."[Burke is] trying to use this case to promote his political agenda, which is not really representing the accuser in this case, but to encourage its lobbying effort, his crusade for cases of sexual misconduct military outside the military chain of command," Chip Herrington, one of Graham's lawyers, said.Changes in the procedures of article 32 would not change the way in sexual assault cases working their way up the chain of command, which Speier called "the elephant in the room."Herrington and lawyers for the other accused midshipman Tate, participating this week in hearings of movement in Washington Navy Yard, which will make a final appeal before a military judge for the cases dismissed or otherwise, to suppress certain evidence to be admitted. Graham and Tate will be judged separately and their courts martial are scheduled for January.Burke and a team of lawyers from the firm Arnold & Porter also presented proposals this week, including one to be allowed to present legal arguments and to enforce the rights [of your customer]." Given that the complainant is not a party in the Government, but simply a "complainant witness", counsel independent of the accusers not allowed is to present arguments.Related: