Local News

Bragg general claims Army wrongly pushing sex charges against him

Posted February 25

Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair

— A Fort Bragg general scheduled to be court-martialed next week on sexual misconduct charges has asked a military judge to dismiss the case, arguing that Army officials are improperly pushing the case because of public outrage over sex assault in the military.

Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair faces charges that include forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and adultery. The charges stem from allegations that Sinclair twice sexually assaulted a captain with whom he had a three-year affair and that he had inappropriate relationships with five other women, including some subordinates.

Sinclair said in a motion filed last Friday that he offered in December to plead guilty to adultery, which is a crime in the military. Lead prosecutor Lt. Col. William Helixon recommended to superiors last month that the offer be accepted, and he recused himself from the case on Feb. 10 after he was told to press forward with the court-martial, according to the motion.

The defense contends that the captain, who served with Sinclair in Iraq and Afghanistan, committed perjury in a January hearing about finding text messages form Sinclair on an old cellphone, making her a poor witness on which to build a case against the general.

The captain said in the January hearing that she came across the old phone in December and charged it up to see if there was anything on it that would affect Sinclair's court-martial. A defense forensics expert contradicted her testimony, saying she had turned the phone on several times in the months before she said she found it packed in a box.

The defense argues in the motion that the Army continues to press the case only to support a get-tough policy against sex assault in the military.

"The (fact) that top military leaders outside the proper chain of command have injected themselves into these proceedings and the current political environment has instilled fear into any officer with authority in connection with a sexual assault prosecution, leads to no other conclusion than the decision-makers in this case fear the adverse personal and political consequences of taking the ethically, morally, and just action of dismissing the charges that rely upon the testimony of the Government’s discredited primary accuser," the motion states. "Because no reasonable observer could possibly determine that such a proceeding was fair and just, this case should be dismissed as a result of unlawful command influence." 

17 Comments

This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • thharri Feb 26, 9:48 a.m.

    This man simply does not have the moral and ethical temperament to be a flag officer in the US Army.

  • Sundays Child Feb 26, 8:57 a.m.

    Strange how this man is on trial, but nothing was done about President Clinton. Does anyone else think this is strange?

  • Dnut Feb 25, 7:47 p.m.

    UCMJ, also stated for years that two members of the same sex caught engaging in a sexual act/or a homosexual act was prohibited. So, I'm thinking that "IF", that's discrimination, having regs against what and who he is, (permiscuous), is discriminitory also. Hey maybe he can start his own Sex organization and protest and get the regs change to suit him also!!

  • Justic4All Feb 25, 6:24 p.m.

    So he had an affair and she was transferred with him to here and there. Then she found the old phone and saw he had been messing around with other women. Tch tch tch... A women's scorn will always get you. He probably would have been treated like any other officer having affairs but he told a reigning comander in Chief, "No" so he is the prime example being paraded around for the public humiliation. All others in the future will be thankful for this show of public humility. He'll still end up in the private sector making big bucks.

  • DontVote4LiarsCheatsOrThieves Feb 25, 6:10 p.m.

    And we had a Commander-n-Chief that not too long ago that got caught in a rather awkward... View More

    — Posted by rmsmith

    -

    Unfortunately, Commanders-in-Chief aren't held to obeying the UCMJ because they sign no contract saying they will like military personnel do.

    Sad isn't it.

  • BeastieBoy Feb 25, 5:09 p.m.

    he says the issue is the Army is cracking down on sexual misconduct and not that he did not do... View More

    — Posted by hapcanuck

    Just like Ron White said; "I wasn't drunk in public until they threw me out into the public." Good one!

  • rmsmith Feb 25, 4:13 p.m.

    And we had a Commander-n-Chief that not too long ago that got caught in a rather awkward situation as well.

  • Thought Criminal WS Feb 25, 3:50 p.m.

    The real reason behind his court martial is because he said no to King Obama. Do some research.

  • anon022 Feb 25, 3:05 p.m.

    Hapcanuck - that's hilarious. But so true.

  • pappy1 Feb 25, 2:54 p.m.

    BTW, for the two years he has been sitting at home (mostly) preparing his defense - HE HAS BEEN GETTING FULLY PAID.

More...