Re: Draft Report -- final to be delivered tomorrow

Off the record, I do these as a statement; that's why I only take on cases when I'm pretty sure I have the time to give it the 30-50 hours I know it's going to take soup to nuts. I've seen some absolute pieces of trash purporting to be 32 reports. the commanders, the SJAs and the accused all depend on a meaningful, independent look at the merits of the case -- that's the whole point. my experience at camp pendleton and marforcom was that counsel expected the 32 to be a check in the box. that is wholly inconsistent with the duty of a lawyer and an officer.

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM, Haytham Faraj <haytham@puckettfaraj.com> wrote:

Received. It was a pleasure having you as our IO. This is the best written and most thoughtful 32 report I have ever read. I look forward to linking up next time you're available.

S/F

Haytham Faraj
Sent from my iPad

On Jun 29, 2011, at 10:50 PM, Rob Bracknell <rob.bracknell@gmail.com> wrote:

This will help both sides get a jump start tomorrow on resolving this case.

Summary of my rec: this is not a GCM case because the Article 120 and related sexual assault-type offenses are unprovable through the testimony of 1stLt Klay, and there is insufficient independent corroboration to shore up her testimony. Moreover, there is a problem with the charging theory on the element of force -- the acts alleged by the government do not constitute "force" within the meaning of the sexual assault statutes. Capt Rowe rates punishment for a handful of lesser offenses at a lower forum and should be separated from the Marine Corps, but not through the means of a GCM.

You can reach me after tomorrow at my gmail address or my usmc.mil address. I will join at New River Friday morning.

s/f,

rgb

--

Butch Bracknell

Lieutenant Colonel, US Marine Corps

CMC Fellow, The Atlantic Council

rbracknell@acus.org

757-287-4704

<DD 457 -- Rowe Article 32 pretrial investigation.pdf>

<Addendum to Art 32 Investigating Officer -- Rowe.doc>