United States v. Keith Barry, a sworn affidavit from Rear Adm. Patrick Lorge revealed something worth discussing.
He stated he had “serious misgivings” about the conviction and was inclined to disapprove it — meaning he did not believe it met the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, he approved the conviction anyway.
His reasoning:
Concern over backlash due to the political climate surrounding sexual assault in the military. He referenced potential fallout from the President and senators, including Kirsten Gillibrand.
Quote:
“As I considered whether to disapprove the findings… I was also concerned about the impact to the Navy… the political climate… would bring hate and discontent… [and] decisions would not be judged on the merits.”
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces later overturned the conviction, citing unlawful command influence.
Open question for discussion:
If a case at this level was influenced by external pressure, how confident should we be that service members lower in the chain of command always receive outcomes based strictly on the merits?