Transcripts For CSPAN2 Defense Advisory Committee Meeting On Sexual Assault In The Military 20240713

Were covered up. We covered technical edits yesterday and those were edits where the staff and the Committee Members made edits. Those edits did not substantially change what was written. In most cases, it made it clear to the reader what was intended. Yesterday, there were several times where we had to stop what we were discussing because it needed to be discussed or deliberated in the public forum or Public Meeting today. When we get to those points, i will turn it over to the chair and she will discuss and handle that discussion. After you all come to a consensus, or dont come to a consensus, we will have a vote for what is going to go into the final report. We will start with the table of contents and page one. The edits that were made were approved by the general, as we move to page four, once again, those edits were approved yesterday because they did not have any substandard change to the report. Now we are on page six. Once again, we have no substantive change to the report of technical editor edits. We added a staff footnote and that was just to clear out what was going on in the paragraph that was discussed. Page nine, once again, approved the staff edits and we added his information into the report. On page 10, we added a footnote to clear up any ambiguity. That that footnote clears up. We go to chapter one which is on page 11 and chapter one is findings and observations based on the review of m cio, military criminal investigation organizations, penetrative sexual offense investigative case files closed in fiscal year 2017. And, so, we look at page 11, general had a comment, yesterday we went over that comment and he had no further issue. On page 12, we have one technical change. Throughout the report, you will see this change. I will not cover it every time we go over it. We changed the word Sexual Assault to sexual offense. For consistency throughout the report, that is the term we will use. Sexual offense. Page 13. We had more edits which we took care of yesterday. Same with page 14. Fifteen. Look at page 16. This is the first instance where the committee will have to discuss and deliberate. Ms. Garvin had a comment and i will turn it over to the chair to discuss the language that should be feared in the sentence that is in the first paragraph while some victims in the Council Agreed to do the followup interview, others requested that the m cio send written questions for the victim to answer which is less than ideal method for developing information. [inaudible] without the explicit statements which is being valued, what i was commenting on is, there are lots of ways of developing information. In a casebycase analysis, there cant be times where written questions are the most effective way for a particular person to respond to questions. We are making a globalized statement that it is always a less than ideal method for developing information. My question was for whom to what and not necessarily factoring that in a casebycase moment, they are different ways of listing effective information for purposes depending on the person being interviewed and followed up with beard my recommendation is at this relatively early phase in our work, putting that assessment in that we strike the clause. I was not a part of the case review process. There may be a review that thats an important clause. My thought on that is, unless you are dealing with a witness with some type of disability, written questions dont get sent someplace, they get answered and they get sent back. That completely curtails the ability to do followup questions. Mr. Kramer, if the government told you you can only communicate with your client with questions, do you think you get a full sense of what had happened . [inaudible] obviously, you are correct. I would never [inaudible] what if we added, for the victim to answer, except in rare instances, a less than ideal method. The value we are putting on here is left untreated less than ideal method for Law Enforcement to elicit what they perceive as a full story. Again, there would never be another moment before in person questioning, which, of course, if it comes to trial, there will be. The first round of questions with you and then lets say the sbc says and im assuming that that is where this came from said, you know what, i am not going to have them sit down for an in person again because when they sit down with you Law Enforcement, they actually start to have panic. Their memory becomes confused and they will give you a statement that is less accurate because of the way xy or z has impacted them. This is true of defendants, too. Sometimes our interrogation tactics do not factor the way the brain is working in the moment. It is less accurate and useful information from persons being interviewed or interrogated. Whatever verb you want to use. Either for my comfort i would either want it to be, which is often less than ideal for developing information from a Law Enforcement perspective. That, i would be comfortable with. Putting the lens on of who is assessing that this is effective information. With that friendly amendment which is often a less than ideal method for developing information for Law Enforcement, for our firm, from Law Enforcement perspective, does anyone have a problem with that . Raise your hand if you are in favor. Simply say yes. Yes. Miss yes. Okay. Thank you. We look at page 17. Those edits were handled yesterday. Page 18. Number two there under discussion. The last sentence in that paragraph says the word swiftly. That seemed because some issues. Investigators need the ability to tailor the scope of the investigation to the fact of that case including the ability to swiftly close investigations when appropriate. There was some discussion, but once again it entered into the realm of deliberation. An abundance of caution if we decide to discuss it today. There was some talk yesterday before we cut it off about just deleting that word. I will turn it over to the chair for discussion. Does anybody feel strongly that the word swiftly needs to be in there . I feel like what we were trying to address is the case is not making it out of the starting gate seemed to go on for six months. I think it would be fine if we say close when appropriate. When appropriate will vary depending upon an investigation. I think part of the thing that we wanted to address was the seed. I would just add a little twist to what you suggest to close the investigations. The ability to close investigation in a timely fashion. Anybody have any thoughts about mr. Kramers proposed amendment . I am sorry, the ability to close investigations in a timely fashion, or timely manner. It can be prosecution as well. It does not mean closing it down with no action. Could use a timely and appropriate fashion . Say it again. Timely and appropriate fashion. Timely and appropriate fashion. Okay. Judge grimm has proposed closing investigations in a timely and appropriate. Appropriate fashion. Anybody have any problems with that . Okay. In favor. Everybody present is in favor. Yes. Okay. That is unanimous. Are judge grimm and ms. Raising their hands when they say yes but your mark. And we are dancing. [laughter] and saluting. Turning to page 19. My a inquire, on page 18, did we delete a portion of the sentence before the one we just addressed, shape and scope. I believe yesterday we agreed it would say most case files revealed that investigators did not have discretion to pursue investigative steps that they deemed appropriate based on the facts of a particular allegation [inaudible] and then also at the last paragraph on page 18, we decided to delete the agency that was mentioned. Turning to page nine teen. I have a . Next to ms. Garvins comment. That was removed yesterday. Thank you. There is nothing further on page nine teen. Page 20, those were technical edits made by the staff. Same with page 21. Same with page 22. Twentythree. Twentyfour and 25. Twentysix and 27. Twentyeight and 29. As well as page 30. Page 31, ms. Garvin had a comment that raised deliberation and, so, it was in the second full paragraph there. I will turn it over to the chair. The sentence of, i am concerned [inaudible] the question sentences the committee is most concerned about those cases reviewed in which a victim preference to go forward to trial prevailed even though there was inadmissible evidence to obtain and sustain a conviction. Can you tell us those concerns . Literally over that bird. I am not sure at this juncture of our understanding of the cases that i am concerned, i am interested in further analyzing these cases and understanding whether there was a robust enough investigation that could have led to admissible evidence, but, at this juncture, based on the testimony we have heard and the pieces ive been personally privy to, i am not concerned. I am curious and interested in further analyzing. Members of the committee. I think that that is valid to raise since we have some thoughts about whether or not we were able to review the complete record, even those given. To flag it as something, we need to use a term that indicate we want to go back and look. First of all, this does reach the conclusion that there was insufficient evidence at the matter of the case versus what we reviewed did not meet the standard shared we had talked about, and i know this will implicate Something Else that we did not always watch the interviews and there was other evidence that we would see. We would just take the reports summarizing it. I do not know what the verb is, though. Any other comments . Suggestions . It seems a propria did the amendment. Im not sure what the amendment was. [inaudible] analyzing or further analyzing. I am interested in digging in. There is clearly something we need to look at. The amendment was that the sentence would read the committee is interested in further analyzing those cases. I agree. I think that is more accurate for what were trying to get to. With that amendment, sorry, does the committee endorsed that amendment . Everybody here says yes. On the line . Yes. No problem. Yes. It passes. Okay. That was all that was on page 31. Page 32. Technical changes that we handled yesterday. Looking at page 35, it was a staff change. First full paragraph there in blue. The issue is half way down that paragraph, on page 33, excuse me , the implementation, the implementation of the judge having revisions to the new disposition guidance should be followed up on thorough site visits to ensure judge advocate advises being conveyed to the initial disposition of authority added time and appropriate matter to inform the position of what action, if any, to take on the allegation. I think that was, i will turn it over to the chair to discuss what word may think should be done to help the committee in that paragraph. The job to ensure that the advises being done and conveyed good more to see, to observe, to assist. That is wonderful. If we move, take out and add assess. Does the committee think that that changes, that that is appropriate. Yes. Yes. Yes. Have the word whether there. [inaudible] okay. In favor. Okay. Just to make sure that the staff is clear, meaning me, the word in short will be removed and the sentence will assess whether judge advocate advises being conveyed. Not wea th er. [laughter] that was all the changes on page 33. We looked to page 34 and the staff was going to add a footnote after that first paragraph and we discussed that. We will add that in to the final draft. Turn to page 35. There were no additional comments. Those were technical edits which i mentioned earlier about infirmities throughout the report. So, turning to page 36, under observation six, the sentence starts troubled. In some cases, the comment was troubled. Was that the correct language that should be used in that vengeance. I think this is just a word smithing change. I turn it over to the chair for discussion. Im not sure that curious really captures what we saw. No pc and yet charges were referred. How about has concerns. Has concerns regarding this and further analyzed. I am okay potentially with has concerns here if it is particularly in light of everything we have heard about how these hearings are going and what has happened in them. It is an investigative moment for us. I am okay even in this situation has concerns and would like to further analyze. I would be okay with that. I just dont want it to be a period after the verb which grammatically it kind of is. My teacher would be very happy i am focused on verbs right now. What they verb . [laughter] conjunction junction. Concerns regarding cases where charges of specification for sexual offenses were preferred. When. That. The officer determined not supported by evidence establishing probable cause to believe the accused committed the offense. The deck ipad will continue to investigate this issue. Would it be more proper to use the word where as opposed to that . I am agnostic regarding that. I am agnostic regarding that. Which charges and specification . Continue on with that sentence and the deck ipad will continue to investigate this issue. Could somebody read the whole thing. The deck ipad has concerns regarding cases in which charges and specifications for penetrated sexual offense were preferred that the preliminary hearing officer were not determined by evidence establishing probable cause to believe that the accused committed the offense. The deck ipad will continue to assess the cases. Then you interrupt the next question. Not referred to courtmartial. [inaudible] you would put that at the end of the paragraph . Yes. That works. Yes. All in favor of that amendment. Judge graham. Ms. Topaz. Yes. Yes. No problem. That passes. Moving down to almost the bottom. The last sentence in that paragraph we were just working on. After footnote 110 the reviewers expressed concern, that paragraph, it was determined yesterday that that was one long almost nonunderstandable sentence. What the staff did was draft a potential, broke it down into more manageable pieces. That sentence would read, cw, dr wg reviewers expressed concerns about cases referred to trial by General Court martial that the preliminary hearing officer had determined lack of probable cause to believe the accused committed a penetrated sexual offense. If such referrals were based on evidence, not presented at the hearing, the benefits of the process were lost. Is that a staff edit . Okay. All in favor. I am sorry. I apologize. Could you reread it, sir. Absolutely. Case review working Group Reviewers expressed concern about cases referred to trial by General Court marshals that the preliminary hearing officer had determined lack of probable cause to believe the accused committed a penetrated sexual offense. As such referrals were based on evidence presented at the hearing, the benefits of the hearings adversarial process were lost. [inaudible] sir, that clarified it for me now i have my notes. Thank you. All in favor of that proposed edit. Judge graham, ms. Topaz. Yes. Yes. Okay. That is unanimous. Turned to page 37. We took care of those edits yesterday. Page 38. Took care of that yesterday. Turning to page 39. Observation eight. There was some discussion about the observation itself which states many Sexual Assault cases are being referred to Courts Martial when there is insufficient evidence to support and sustain a conviction. I believe, ms. Long, you had concerns about using the word many in that observation. I did based on the limits of our review. My suggestive language i tried to revise by replacing many with, or, inserting before many based on information this dr wg reviewed the investigative file. Probably too clunky. Basically saying what we reviewed we found this. Again, i think it is one of those we probably need to look at it more deeply because we know our review is to limited, at times. So i believe, let me see if i have the sentence right, based on information reviewed, and that is before many so it would be based on information reviewed, many Sexual Assault cases are being referred. What if we did it the other way which is many of the Sexual Assault cases that were referred by the working group. What about based on the cr wg review i just wanted to flag in there that our review is limited just a nobody draws a conclusion that it was true, given we know we did not look at some things. That was my pushback. If im the outlier, im happy to just be at the center on this. Did we address what was in the case files earlier in the report that we did not either have access to or were able to review the tapes of the statements . What we stated earlier was our review by the working groups was we reviewed those investigations that were provided to us based our analysis on the case file that was presented, that was reviewed. That is really not the full picture. If we did not watch the tapes, which we did not, then we did not reveal what was given to us. What if we put a footnote on that and at the bottom referred back to the pages where we addressed that point and the other point about the limitation based only on the investigative files on page whatever and the one where added the sentence about we did not know, we relied on the investigators putting the Key Information into the summary. We were upfront about that. If we footnote to those two pages, then anybody that looks at that and raises her eyebrows, then they will read the other stuff again. That is fine with me. Okay. The staff will have to find that to footnote it. [inaudible] yes. Yes. Okay. That passes. [laughter] almost like you are not here. [laughter] my comments are coming. Did you stand up . [laughter] its okay. That was all the edits or deliberation on page 39. [inaudible] there was no, on page 40, just technical edits. Moving to page 41. There were some comments about observation nine and ms. Garvin had a comment. I will turn it over to the chair for discussion. Can you tell us what your concern was. The observation talks about pretrial advice being more helpful to convening authorities if it included explanations to the conclusions and we had not yet, i dont believe we had heard from convening authorities telling us that fact. This is us assuming that it would be more useful to them. I thought that clarification point might be useful so it is not misconstrued as a testimonial based on facts. That is my recollection. What i remember was a checkbox. We have jurisdiction over the accused. The forms specifications are correct, and there was one more. Three checks. Jurisdictions, forms specifications and probable cause. Based on what we saw in the files, we have heard in testimony that there is a lot of oral advice that is not documented that is given. Since it is not documented, we do not know what it is. What the word could as opposed to wood because the problem . Absolutely. In the very last sentence of observation nine, article 34 pretrial advice could be more helpful. Yes. As amended. In favor. Yes. Judge graham. Yes. That is an animus. It is amended. Nothing else on page 41 that needed to have any discussion. Turning to page 42. Ms. Garvin had a comment. It needs to be discussed. Chair, do you want me to my reading of the final two sentences, and it mostly hangs on the clause, that the last sentence. The last two sentences read better practice is to provide an explanation if needed, written legal analysis and could enhance further, could enhance fairness and transparency in the military Justice System. Benefits that do not seem to be outweighed by a need for confidentiality. It is that last, benefits that do not seem to be outweighed by need for confidentiality. I was not sure we had enough evidence to make that statement. Again, maybe it is the working Group Getting more information to share that peace. Thoughts . We could just omit it. I dont recall such specific points of confidentiality being discussed. I believe that it was discussed, a discussion about somebody tipping their hands. The prosecution said the defense would know what we know. I already know where are going in the prosecution already knows where the defense is going. Something like that. Just put a period after system and leave out anything after th. Does that work . All in favor of that. Judge graham. Yes. Yes. That is unanimous. A written legal analysis could enhance due to process and transparency in the military Justice System. Now we are moving on to chapter two which is title article 32. The Court Martial referral process. There is nothing further on page 42 or 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, there were changes on 53 that we discussed yesterday and those were technical edits. Same with page 54. Fiftyfive. And 56. If you will please turn to tab five in your materials, these are the charts that would go with the chapter. What we needed you all to do yesterday when we came to these charts i said it is a lot to digest and the five seconds you are looking at them. Take a look at them tonight and determine whether or not you think, if there are any changes that need to be made to them. We discussed some quick changes to the charts. Figure one where the 19, i think that was general swank, the 19 was out of the box so the concurrent was that we would just move the numbers inside the boxes to make it more understandable to the reader. That was the only change on that chart. We had agreed to that yesterday, i believe. Great. Right there was also a question dash the numbers in the graph. Put something on the lefthand side that explained what that column meant. Like total cases or something. It does not match up well. [inaudible] i think adding nine and 19, two shy of 30 which is the graph the confusion is when 19 was above it. We looked at 19 and thought was in the middle of 30. If this chart is unclear, or does not add anything, we can certainly delete it. Putting the top numbers into the column, it will take care of that. Lower numbers are in the column itself. Nine below the night teen is in there. Its making it look as though the total is 19. We will redraft her rework this slide and get it back to you. I have seen cases just like this where they put the nine in the box, the 19 in the box and they put 28 at the top so everybody sees a total. Twentyeight. Is that a change that everyone can agree to . Excellent. I think it was good to think outside of the box. We will make the changes to the chart. Look at the chart on the next page. We look at the dark gray and light gray. The decision was made to merge those and make it easier to read talking about dismissed by a convening authority. Will we then use a medium grade for that . Nevermind. I withdraw. We will make that change. The same with the following chart. Just a reproduction of the chart at fiscal year 17 and the next is fiscal year 18. We will make the same changes on those charts. Any questions about the charts . Can we go back to the round circle chart . Dismissed by the spc mca. Did we say we were going to merge those . Yes, sir. Okay. Turning back to page 58. There were no changes. Looking at page 59, the first paragraph, there was some discussion about whether it should be dod or cipro changing the wording there. I will turn it over to the chair for discussion. What did you mean here . Does not collect information on the legal outcome of cases to which the victim was the spouse of an eminent marker. It goes on from there. Dod doesnt collect on legal outcome of all cases. Does not really matter who the victim is. Dod meaning the services as part of dod. I believe that people, i heard chuck was there, from the data working group, and he said the deck ipad gets their information that this refers to the response office. And of the department of defense the sentences true where we get our information from. It is my understanding that the proposal was change dod to chabrol and if there was more that is where we get our information from. Im not sure that is where we get all of our information from. Wasnt there an issue about also not collecting that data was your mark it should be clarified also the Family Advocacy program. They would have to go to services and have them pull through. I just want to make sure we are clarifying. For those years, 20122014, we dont have that information. We do have it for the following years. That is correct. In the methodology of the data working, how the data came out. That is just explaining how the data is not as accurate as the rest of the data that is collected for the case of adjudication report. Why dont we just say that the statistical data for fiscal years 20122014 collected by the jp p do not include the legal outcomes of cases in which the victim is the spouse or partner and will not be included in the historical discussion to follow. The department of defense does not collect information would be deleted. Yes. We would start out with the statistical data for fiscal years 20122014 collected by the panel do not include legal outcomes of cases in which the victim is the spouse or intimate sponsor. Then you continue on to will not be included in the historical discussion to follow. As amended, all in favor. Yes. Yes. If you could turn your attention to tab six. These are the charts that will go in the report. Once again, the same discussion was had about giving you time yesterday evening to digest these charts. There is a lot of information there. Is that the full number of cases . For the first bar chart on page one, is that the total number of cases each year . [inaudible] do you need a title for that figure . [inaudible] oh, it will be in the text. Okay. On page 59, down at the very bottom, figures re. 1. Cases documented by the deck ipad. And the chart at the bottom of that page just breaks out once again the percentages of Service Members in each service and as a percentage of Sexual Assault per service for the population. And if you look at page 60, figure 3. 2, military service of the accused, the following table is provided penetrated sexual offense and contact offenses completed by the military services in fiscal year 28 teen. Anybody have any questions or concerns about either of those charts on page one of tab six . Moving to the next page. Table one. Dispositions. Page 62 we say table 3. 1, im sorry, figures and tables. Comments . Suggestions . Page 56. No edits on 66, 67, 68 or 69. Looking at page 70 we had some discussions. Wanted to make sure everyone is clear. Paragraph two that states false allegations of Sexual Assault. We discussed that in the body, i think ms. Garvin highlighted the fact it should be consistent with what is in the body of when it refers to Sexual Assault of false allegations of Sexual Assault. I think that we said it could be on each side of that sentence or not. Werent you going to rename it consistent with paragraph one inconsistencies. All allegations of Sexual Assault. Is everyone comfortable with that technical change . Yes. All in favor. Yes. Yes. Judge graham. Yes. That is unanimous. Yes. All right. No changes on 71. If we look to page 72, if you could go to tab seven. These are charts that deal with the incidence of collateral ms. Ms. Conduct. What you see in table one is broken down by service and then what type of action was taken. And then further in table two, it is also broken down by service and then the type of alleged misconduct. Is there somewhere where we explained the difference between accused underline and accused as we use in table 4. 1. Could you say that again sir . And table 4. 1 on the lefthand column the second one down says number of Service Members quote accused unquote, same in the third one down but the fourth one down says accused underlined and the next one on the next page which is this one down and says accused underlined so we have a tie score, two with quotes and two with not and i wonder if it means Something Different . That rb did Something Different . Do we need to explain it . There must be a reason. Doesnt seem to matter but its just to be consistent across the table. The reason its accused in the first two is because that is the way the term was used initially to record and then it was withdrew and underlined and the next two are just getting the percentages of first, just the accused, and the second accused who received adverse action so it was for emphasis. I would suggest either we can take it out theres nothing wrong with taking it all out or making it all one way or the other. The body as the report explains that its a technical term in a military so the services, they defined that divinely for providing numbers so it was less than helpful. Its not important other than however for consistency you want it. I think that quotations are relatively important in that there are different definitions and so for consistency i think that triggers recognition of definitions which is [inaudible] thats administrative and we dont need to vote on that. Thats fine. I have a substantive question on table fourpoint to, false report, we also need to indicate because as it reads it would read like what one would think is a false report based on the inconsistent definition i dont know if we just a footnote that table back to the page where we talk about it or if we need to put it in quotations. It says as defined by each military service but or just a footnote back to where you talk about it in the reports. Jen, out of curiosity if assault allegations and the says falls [inaudible] i know but i think this is the same date unless there is the table is different data but i dont recall hearing any testimony about true false reports, a clean false report. When we were going through the misconduct report and the draft that we received from the services and then we brought that to the attention of the committee you all discussed that there definitions of what a false allegation and false complaint wasnt clear and i recall the victim made an allegation and there was a discussion with some of the thirdparty made it and the victim it wasnt and that was a false report. Rights. Based upon what you all discussed we decided to not include that as collateral misconduct because it wasnt clearly defined. So then this thing is a true false report in that table . I think it is as each servico thought that its a true false report and not collateral misconduct but if it is misconduct so that is why i think we are not including them coming. Am i missing something . It is in that table. Depends on how you want to capture that information. What you decided is that it wasnt as the chair said it really wasnt collateral misconduct and then there really wasnt a clear definition of what that meant across the services. And so, the decision was made that you all will not put it in the collateral reports as arming collateral misconduct report as collateral misconduct but you would note which we did and the false allegation that we talked about so we could either leave it in if it is helpful or just delete that section right there in the graph. Since we are not counting it we could probably just delete that last block. Thoughts . Delete the last favor . I think we should delete it. Im sorry. Delete it. Judge . I agree. That passes with [inaudible] dissenting. Oh, im sorry. I thought she said descent. She said deleted. I said deleted. I agree. That was unanimous. And i believe the paragraph two on page 70 fully discusses your concerns that you had so i dont think its based upon that and i dont think its relevant. And a on the table for three . And that is just a breakout of the result of the collateral misconduct versus what they received as a result of committing collateral miscondu misconduct. Any opposition, thoughts or comments . Moving on. The next chart is a pie chart. I dont know whether this is helpful to you all or the reader but that is something you can this is the exact same information so the question for you is do you prefer table one, do you prefer this table or do you [inaudible] that is a Graphic Design app that presented the same information. Personally i find a pie chart with the wedge coming out very confusing but that may just be me so i defer to the committee as a whole. My recommendation is that you go with table one, not the pie charts because its consistent the way the charts are laid out by service. In favor of the table not the pie. [laughter] yet, i agree. Unanimous with that. Go to page 75. There were no edits there. Page 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83. That ends the collateral misconduct. Chapter five, military and site visits and member observations of Sexual Assault courtmartialed in 2020. Chapter five is a chapter we added in here to discuss the site visits and the courtmartialed observation so we are on page 84 and there were a edits on page 85 where we took out the states where we would be going to those places and discussed that yesterday and that seemed to be what everyone wanted to do is to take the dates out and it was approved. And then we looked page 86 note changes and that brings us to the end of the review of the draft report and at this time i believe the chair could take over we will have a vote on the acceptance of the report that as amended with the amendments in the changes. I so move we accept the reform. All in favor. Yes. Yes. Unanimous. What we will do next as the staff wait, time out. I just want to say on behalf of the members, thank you for putting this together. I dont believe we are of 1 of this or less and even with all our edits and i thought it was another great job for another year and i recommend that your contacts be extended. [laughter] you dont realize how much you did help because what we do to write the report is we go back and look at the transcripts and the conversations that you all have had when you are discussing these issues and so you look at the footnotes and you will see where your footnote is a lot of what the information contained is stuff that you said and did so i think that the way forward the staff will make those changes and we will get that all out to you just so you or you have a Comfort Level that we didnt make the changes and then we will send that to the printer and out to the various organizations that get the draft report. Secretary of defense and the members of the Senate Armed Services committee and house Armed Services committee are the folks that get it so while i am appear and dont have to move i want to let you know what will happen. On the 18 the chair is having an office with the secretary of defense and so she will have the opportunity to discuss the fine work that you all are doing at the committee and we received some read ahead materials and what you are doing and some talking points so that happen on the 18 and part of the 2020 and daa which the colonel may talk about is that its been extended for five years and that requires a decision on your part we will get back to you individually as to whether you want to continue in this excellent mission to make the military Justice System better so that will be forthcoming but if you want to or are willing to do what is good about this is you all know what the time involvement is. Now i know some of you are retiring and you will even have more time to involve yourself with this worthwhile goal so the staff would like to thank you for your input and the ease it is really the ease working with you all is amazing. I came in at the tail end of some other committees where they did not have the cohesiveness and discussions that you all are having and that is vital for the staff to be able to work and put together a product that you all are vitally important to help us do that. Thank you once again and we are not done for today. Oh yeah, he voted on the report. The only depending on the date of the transmittal letter to the secretary of defense there would be one other edit in the introduction where you have to insert the word former after march 20. Yeah, i dont know if you are aware but i dont think she will mind you telling you that the chair is retiring after 40 years in the Manhattan Das Office and so once again she will have a lot of time to fly around the United States and observe courtmartialed and site visits. We will make that edit when w we as needed but we are scheduled for a break but we have really only been back for an hour so people dont mind why dont we forge through with mr. Heinz and the site visits. Good afternoon, members. This will be a brief update. I will not rehash what we covered at the last meeting but to let you know that the site visit planning is proceeding and the staff is putting together question package on the various topic areas that you will be questioning the practitioners and the various stakeholders that you will meet with on the trips and we have at least four Committee Members now going on each trip which is very good and a very good Participation Rate so we are appreciative of your willingness to take time out of your busy schedules to go on these trips and we bent working closely with our Service Representatives to lineup our local points of contact on the ground, on site, so that we can facilitate our movement into this logistical things that people dont think about and the service presented lives have been responsive and good at giving us the names of those people on the ground and that is a continuous process and we will proceed as we go through. Unless there is any questions that is the extent of my update good everything is proceeding fine and we havent there is or there was one development that i should probably let you know about, the navy did notify us that portion of that europe trip did include meeting with the navy as we had the trips set the navy folks were going to drive seven hours to meet us and so what we decided is we would not ask them to do that so that group will go ahead and go on down from the first installation down to the navy because at naples they had a very robust, not only Operational Presence there but legal presence as well and a real that is where the navy judge in theater six and has their courthouse. That is about it. Are there any questions about any site visits . Talk to some of the members including about your personal travel and that is something we can talk about and she is not the only one but we can handle offline with our staff and that is how we will glenn, what is the process for determining what questions we will ask each particular group at each if we will do this so originally i thought we were talking about the idea i had come up with five questions for the counsel and defense counsel and questions for each group that everybody would ask so when we got back and you guys compiled it you would have answers from across the board and so the question then is out of the 50 million questions we could ask counsel for example what are the five that are most important to us to make sure we all ask so i just want if we have a process to figure that out . As a staff we are working on that issue right now and have been working on it and its just a process of soliciting everyones idea so that we can come to what we call question package which were similar to what we use for the Judicial Proceeding Panel and those tend to get refined after you do site visits you find that there are some questions that maybe they are better than others and that are more robust for discussion than others and so the staff is working on that and it is our intent to wrap that around and to get your input so that we have a final product. When we get out there, ive also had discussions with doctor wells about because there has been theres a concern presented that you need to make objective feedback as we possibly can so weve been talking with doctor wells on how to refine the questions and even use instructions that are part of every site visit so when you get that information back you can put it in a form or format more objective and less susceptible to being called anecdotal, if you can understa understand. I did not understand what you meant by there are two locations in europe, one is germany and one is italy. Yes, maam. We had such positive response on that particular trip that we determined with the staff director and the deputy that we were going to not have everyone go to both sides and so we basically got half the members going to germany and half going to italy. When they come back from naples talking about the villa they had in the bay and capri and everything you will not be on that one . You are going to germany ass [inaudible] if you signed up for the site visit to go to italy that seven hour trip that glenn was talking about will probably fly but that will take an extra day of travel which we didnt anticipate doing so i would look at your calendars and make sure you have the additional day or two to make that trip because one of the things we are trying to do on these sites is make it a little as possible impact on the units we want to talk to and clearly having folks drive seven hours is not so we will just travel all day and then get those folks the next day so we are not impacting them. I dont think it will not cause or should not cause too much problem because that trip is the week of july 26 and it was already scheduled to end on thursday and so if we had to add one more day it would still be or it would not be going over into the following weekend. Any other questions on that site visit . In addition to developing the question we wanted to present have we identified specifically which components of the system that who will be talked to in particular and what is the blends they are and that we will have a representative example of those at the sites. Yes, mr. Markey. Each day we will have much like our Public Meetings or cap medians there will be an agenda we prepare and in addition to the agenda each of those sessions will be with a different the term i use is stakeholder so trial counsel will be in one session, defense counsel in another, if we meet with the vlc investigators, commanders, convening authorities, and the two training bases there will be a time where we will meet with recruits or trainees and entrylevel training. We are working with the service reps to make sure that we get the right people for each panel but we also get sufficient number of them and hopefully a sufficient number of them with the reckless level of experience that will be of the most value for you when you are speaking with them. Thank you very much. Could i ask another question . One followup on the trip. Is it possible to have you circulate through a chart with the dates of the trips and the people that you have as indicating that a desire to attend and maybe point of contact if the individual members have questions about travel arrangements to get Background Information and some of us, myself included, our schedules may have shifted as a result of work, exigencies that created a situation and so i wanted to have the most recent information about these trips to confirm availability if that is possible. Yes, your honor. If i heard you correctly or you just asking about the current schedules of when the trips are and which members and which staff are going to be attending each trip . Correct. And then maybe a point of contact so that if we have questions about travel arrangements, for example, we could contact and get information on that. Yes, sir. Our staff will be putting together your travel so i will absolutely get you that information as soon as possible. Thank you so much. Youre welcome. Thank you. Unless anybody minds why dont we forge ahead which would be colonel with the 2020 nda. If you wanted to hear just a very, very brief update on your courtmartial observations i can provide that. Great. Courtmartial observations are still ongoing, holidays slowed us down a little bit but we had tumor members that had courtmartialed since the last meeting and we are now into some of the members attending second courtmartials of a Different Service and everyone is finding the experience very valuable. I just sent out a list of over 80 courtmartials that are special assault courtmartials structured to take place between now and june and some people have already responded with the dates they may have available. If everyone else can take a look at that and get with me on that there is no question. That is it. Thank you. Colonel, welcome. Thank you very much. Its great to be back. I testified before this group back in august as part of the initial hearing that we conducted back in august but by way of introduction im the chief of the colonel law division for the office that the judge advocate general for the United States army and ive been asked to provide an update or serve an overview along the key provisions of the 2020 National Defense authorization act and i will hit several items that have impacted this body directly and some of which have already been mentioned in the earlier hearings. Also, other provisions that are in the act that may be of interest to this group as it looks at the investigation and prosecution and defense of Sexual Assault in the armed forces. But i guess the larger audience wont hit every item in the 2020 nda as a companys of documents that is, of course, the thousand page statute toward provisions that provide the authorization for the department of defense at a large and these are only the provisions that basically adjust military justice and simply Sexual Assault in the armed forces. The first section that is worth noting is of course section 535 that the fiveyear charter to ten years. Congratulations and youve been extended for until february 2026 were previously the expiration was february 2021. The next item of interest is section 550 that appoints a new Defense Advisory Committee and this one is the Defense Advisory Committee on the prevention of Sexual Assaults. So, this charter or this committee is that it will advise the secretary on the following, the prevention of Sexual Assault, including rape, forcible sodomy and other Sexual Assaults and misconduct involving members of the armed forces but as well as the policies, programs and practices of the department as it relates to the prevention of sexual misconduct. And so, the keynote here is that there are, of course, going to be matters of joint interest with both of these bodies in the statute requires coordination between these two separate advisory committees. The next section that is important and has specifically addressed the ipad is requirement to requirement to have an assessment of racial, ethnic and gender disparities in the military Justice System. This statutory provision has two portions of it, the first is a task to the department of defense and requires the armed forces to record the race, ethnicity and gender of the victim and the accused. It also requires the dormant to gather other demographic information about the victims and the accused as the secretary determines the appropriate. It also requires the services to include this data and report that the Arms Services each produce each year under article 146 alpha that basically records the data of courtmartial each year and been called a cap report but now it is called the article 146 alpha reports. That will then drive a task to the ipad the requires an assessment of three things, two of them are listed here on the slide but the review and assessment by fiscal year of the race and ethnicity of the armed forces accused of penetrative Sexual Assault or contact Sexual Assault offenses in an unrestricted report. The next is the same assessment in the race and ethnicity of the armed forces against whom charges were preferred. The final task, not listed on the side but it is in the statute is an assessment of the race and ethnicity of those members of the armed forces who were convicted of a penetrative Sexual Assault or other contact Sexual Assault offenses. Then requires a report from the ipad informing the secretary of defense and the house Armed Services committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee Setting forth the results of those reviews and assessments. The portion of this provision is to record this data and then determine if there are any disparities that require action by the deferment of defense or by congress. Next slide. Outside the statute there are two tasks and there are three and i will address the third outside the later but the general brought it up earlier today but there are two assessments in the conference report to the National Defense authorization act so its outside the statutory language but included in the report of the [inaudible] and the first is after the dacipad to conduct an assessment of other justice programs, for example, mediati mediation, Restorative Justice programs that might be appropriate in to assist the victim of an alleged Sexual Assault particularly where those at Sexual Assault may not have proceeded to a criminal prosecution. In essence, an assessment of all the programs that might have victims in a process. The next is an assessment under rcm 1001c of victim impact so as you may already know and of course general brought this up earlier that rcm 10001 see, affords victims of special rights to provide input to the courtmartial with respect to two items. Victim impact and also mitigation and it can do this in one of two ways and they can do it through a sworn statement or an unsigned statement and they are concerned that some of the military judges have interpreted this rule to narrowly and as a result it is limiting what survivors are permitted to say during sentencing hearings in a way that does not fully inform the court of the impact of the crimes on the survivors. What the have asked the dacipad to conduct their own assessment as part of the review of courtmartial cases to determine whether this may be the case and there is also a third task in the conference support related to guardian ad litems and i will talk about that a little bit later with respect to a separate study that the department of defense has to conduct. Next is a series of provisions that are do not have specific tax to the dacipad but may be of interest in these resulted in victim notification. The first is section 536 that is a special statutory provision that requires the dod to establish procedures to enable the return of personal property that is been collected from a victim as part of a sexual forensic assault examination and in currently those procedures we not be as clear or as formalized as the congress would like and so he directed the deferment of defense to establish procedures by which the victim can seek return of personal property and also to making sure their informed perhaps of the consequences of the collection of that personal property may have on their case. Next is 538 which requires the navigation of the victim of each significant offense in the prosecution or in the military Justice System or the process and the processing of their case specifically but it requires two things additionally requires documentation in the case file of the victim notification and also it specifically also requires documentation of a victims preference whether they prefer the case to be handled by the military Justice System or civilian system. Next, it requires status updates specifically as a case makes its way through the system and so the commander and as the commander who is making determinations might periodically notify the victim of the final determination on further action and on their case. Basically, again it requires status updates to the victim on the case as it proceeds to final determination whether that final determination be courtmartial or nonjudicial punishment under article 15 in the uniform code of military justice another and ministry of action or no action at all. Again, statutorily requiring victim notification. Next slide. The next two sections that i will address i have consolidated them into one bullet but two sections that basically by statute increase the manpower allocated to the investigation and victim assistance in Sexual Assault cases. The first is a requirement that military criminal Investigative Organization increase the number of defense or forensic examiners by at least ten over about the next by at least ten cents a number that was in existence on 30 september 2019. In the statutory increase of ten thats forensic examiners. Next is an increase in the number of Sexual Assault investigators and so that it does not prescribe a specific number for what it does prescribe is a standard and so the standard is that military criminal Investigative Organizations are to have enough investigators such that they can process their cases within six months from the reports. Or i should state the initiation of the investigation spirit colonel, could you clarify the mc i o will includes the number of defense forensic examiners or Digital Forensic examiners connect. You are right, Digital Forensic examiners connect okay. I miss book. Thank you. Finally, it requires an increase in vw ls, victim witness liaisons across all the services and in essence, the services are directed to fill all their shortages so there may be allocations out there that arent filled for one reason or the other and services are required to fill their shortages by 19 december 2020. Next, is section 540 see that requires the secretary of defense to establish a policy to ensure timely disposition of Sexual Assault prosecution decisions. Most importantly, a decision not to prosecute a particular case and so the that policy is required by june 2020 and again designed to ensure disposition timely of the prosecutable related, not prosecutable but sexually related offenses. The next three sections that id like to address address training and so these three provisions are statutory provisions that direct the department of defense and conducts training. The first is to initial disposition of authorities. Idas, statute requires specific training for initial disposition of authorities and those are the authorities that are established in april 2012 withholding policy from the secretary of defense so you may be familiar with the secretary of defense withheld the disposition of certain types of Sexual Assault or certain types of sexual offenses to 06 with a special courtmartial convening authority power. This requires specific training for the initial disposition of authority that basically is designed to frame them on the exercise of their disposition authority. Next is section 540b which directs specific training on the role of commanders in the military justice and so commanders are across all the services and instructed or required to receive uniform training on the role of commanders in all stages of the military justice process. That training is to include investigations, prosecution, victim and assistance rights, retaliation prevention, healthy command climate to facilitate reporting and any other matters that the secretary of defense may deem as appropriate. That training is also required to include best practices and the department is also required to conduct periodic surveys try to invite those best practices and again incorporate them into the training. Again, all the services are different in terms of how they train their officers and their commanders but the statute requires secretary to ensure practical uniformity across all services. Finally, section on this with respect to training is section 540d and the secretary of defense is to establish and develop comprehensive policy to reinvigorate the prevention of Sexual Assault. This is complementary to the Defense Advisory Committee that statute creates this also directed the secretary to establish policy to reinvigorate prevention and so that the policy is designed to include education and training and Program Designed to encourage and promote healthy relationships, empowerment of noncommissioned officers fostering of social courage to promote intervention and processes mechanism to address behavior on the continuum of harm, prevention of alcohol abuse and any other matters that the secretary deems appropriate. Within 180 days after the issuance of that policy could because that policy is acquired by 17 june 2020 within 180 days after that the secretary has to have their own policy. Next slide. The next three provisions are those that the best categories as affecting the prosecution of Sexual Assault. The first is section 540j the requires the Pilot Program for defense investigators pretty you heard that mentioned by one of the Panel Members earlier that the statute required each of the services to conduct their own Pilot Program but there are two specific aspects of those that are worth mentioning in the first is that the programs are supposed to be as uniform as possible across all the services but also by statute it requires that the defense investigator may not seek speak to a victim of that offense except through a request made to the special Victims Council or another counsel if the victim does not have their own specialty counsel so that is one aspect of the program that as the services are conducting their Pilot Program we will be required as part of this new statute. And then, after the Pilot Program the statute requires a report after three years on those and i will note that the army is already begun a program to Institute Defense investigators and it will hire 12 over. Next is section 543, section 5 543101516 alpha so i apologize and i will a corrected copy back but its 1567 alpha subparagraph alpha and so what section 1567 alpha does requiring notification to Law Enforcement to local Law Enforcement when the commander issues a military protective order and when either the victim or when either party, i will say, to the military protective order lives off the military installation so requires notice in this provision requires notice to take place within seven days of the issuance. It also establishes a reporting requirement that the services will track the number of military protective orders issued in the numbers that are reported to civilian authorities. Section 550 is an additional provision to protect disclosures that are made as part of the catch a serial predator or catch a serial Offender Program so this is a program under the department of defense whereby victims who have made a restricted report can still divide details with respect to their offender or the offense to the Law Enforcement to enable the investigation of serial offenders so this provision provides two protections back to victims who choose to participate in this program and the first is that anything that a victim says or discloses as part of this program is protected from disclosure under the freedom of information act. There is such a program now, yes but it has started. I dont recall the exact specific dates but it is in effect right now. Next, section 550 also makes clear that anything that a victim says is part of this disclosure with respect to the program does not affect the status of their restrictive report. It protects their restrictive report even though they choose to participate in this program. This is section 541 so these provisions address basically the victim was a Legal Counsel that was provided to the victims and so for section 541 and makes clear that special Victims Counsel or Victims Counsel must assist or consult and assist victims with incidences of retaliation. They are to assist victims in understanding their rights, assist victims in a filing complaints and also assist victims through any other resulting military justice proceedings. This provision section 541 also directs by december 2024 that Staffing Levels for special Victims Counsel or victims Legal Counsel are such that to the extent that the average client load is 25 cases for these counsel. Section 542 mandates that a special Victims Counsel or Legal Counsel will be made available to victim within 72 hours of notification or im sorry, 72 hours of the request at the exigent circumstances. That gives authority the secretary to articulate what those exigent circumstances are but basically again mandates that the special Victims Counsel be made available within 72 hours and if the secretary determines that a victim of Legal Counsel cannot be available through within that 72 hours that secretary ensures the council will be provided to the victims as soon as possible. Section 548, its a new statute and i will address this later in the reporting provision but what this does is expand the availability of counsel to the mystic violence victims. And so, as long as the mystic violence victim is otherwise entitled to Legal Assistance under ten usc, 1044 thats the statute that authorizes Legal Assistance they would also be entitled to counsel that leaves to the services and leads to the services and the ability to determine whether that will be provided whether Legal Assistance function or the special Victim Counsel function. However, what it does also require is a report back to Congress Actually coming up quickly within 120 days of the pasts passage of the statute which would be in april on how the services will implement this, what resources they may need and what training or other statutory provisions may be necessary to expand and make this program happen. It also can specify that this will receive special Legal Training in the legal issues associated with Domestic Violence and also to directs to the extent practicable that they serve as counsel in this role for not less than two years. It also makes clear that this relationship is to be an attorneyclient relationship versus some other type of relationship. Finally, section 550 c makes clear that when a counsel is assigned as a special Victims Counsel that there to receive special training on the local laws that are applicable in the jurisdiction in which they practice. What this is designed to facilitate is the educated and informed advice that they may give to the victim on whether to choose or to elect that the handling of the cases of the military justice process or through the civilian jurisdiction and so that must include victim rights, prosecution of criminal offenses, sentencing for conviction of criminal offenses and protective orders and again its a local law that addresses those four items. Could i make one comment about that . It takes a fair amount of time to learn all of those things about local jurisdiction and people get transferred from installation to installation and also note you could have soldiers in fort dix come to manhattan for the weekend and knowing new jersey law to the extent you can learn it that quickly would not help you very much. Its wellintentioned but its not an easy task is what im trying to point out there. Yes, maam. Thank you very much. It will be incumbent on this earth to look at those nuances of this election and make sure we tailor our programs appropriately. Sir, if i may. Quick question also that that training on the policy with regard to the state systems doesnt expand sec role to representing in those systems, does it . If the survivor, the victim, goes that route and the prosecution that route and the sec is not rubs indeed that system, correct . Thats right. I do not read it that way. Again, it solely to assist the special Victims Counsel and advising the client in making sure which process to choose. Next slide. The next eight provisions over the next two slides are slides are reports that the department of defense is required to provide back to congress on various aspects of the military Justice System and so the first one is a recommendation as to the establishment of a separate Sexual Harassment punitive articles so currently under the military Justice System Sexual Harassment is generally punished in one of two ways, addressed in one of two ways and the first news article 93 of the uc mj which is a provision that prevents cruelty and to subordinates. The second way is there a violation of any Applicable Service relations or policy that addresses Sexual Harassment and what this provision is acting the department of defense to do is to provide an assessment on whether for lack of a better word, pros and cons, issues involved in a actual separate uc mj article that would address Sexual Harassment next is section 540f and i think if i may editorialize i think this is the most significant study that the department of defense has two conduct both in scale and consequence but what this is is an assessment of the feasibility and advisability of an alternative military Justice System for felony level offenses. We are in 06 judge advocate with criminal litigation experience outside the train of command of the accused makes referral or referral decisions. That is a very copies of study that also by the statutory terms requires an assessment of other military justices throughout the world and that is the department of defense 300 days to conduct that study and annexes section 548. 548 and this is the study the feasibility and advisability of establishing that is applicable only within the air force with respect to the safety reports and what this provides immunity to victims who may have engaged in collateral misconduct during or propagating their Sexual Assault or also if there was collateral misconduct discovered within the investigation of the Sexual Assault. With this provision it would provide immunity to victims who report with such collateral misconduct. Of note though, the bill has been introduced in both the house and senate within the past two weeks that would create this provision by statute. Next is section that would be considered as part of the 2021 active defensive authorization act. Next is 540k and the purpose of this study is to conduct an assessment as to the feasibility and advisability of expanding the protections available to victims who make restricted reports. In other words, when a victim makes a restrictive report that restricted they can only make that restricted reports and have it remain a restricted to individuals. What this is requires the department of defense for the advisability to expand that. In other words, the victims could make restricted reports to other particular members, certain for example, one of the questions by statute that we are asked is to whether they might be able to make the restrictor for lawenforcement but say that we want the report to be restricted and to members of their chain of command or military sponsor. Again they can make those reports and they would still be considered restricted for purposes of that policy. Im sorry. [inaudible question] that third party as i understand the statute is that if a third party were to report a Sexual Assault that the victim themselves were reporting the thirdparty making act and the victim could still ask that ba restricted reports. Next, what is important on this is that as dod is conducting its study that the utes required to consult with the dacipad on this and that report is due in june of 2020. The next is section 540 lima and this provision asks or what this provision asks dod to study actually, nest bod to study as well as the dacipad the advisability of the Guardian Ad Litem Program. The general mentioned this earlier in the discussion with the judge and the military, dod study is basically limited to determining whether Guardian Ad Litem Program would be appropriate for military dependents or witnesses in a crime under the uc mj so that requires a couple of things but but the statutory terms we are asked to look at as if the victim is under 12 or if the victim has a mental impairment or incapacity in some way, shape or form. What the dacipad is required to study by the way, i will say that the dod at a year to provide our study and the dacipad only had six months to conduct its study but what the dacipad is directed to study is the advisability of providing a guardian ad litem for upon the reports of any sexual related offense for any victim who is not attained the age of 18. Would be a much Broader Group of folks that would be entitled to a guardian ad litem under the dacipad study. May i ask a clarifying question . The dacipad is just victims, not witnesses and dod is victim family that is the way i understand. Next is 5 40 a. M. And this is not a deferment of defense study but a joa study but it is noteworthy that the congress has passed the comptroller of the United States and likely it would be the gao that conducts the study but its a report on the implementation of the statutory requirements on Sexual Assault, prevention response in the military over 20042019. This is again a very copies of study governing 15 years worth of statutory and policy changes that have occurred in the Sexual Assault arena during that time. Section 542 directs the city on feasibility and advisability of establishing and maintaining civilian positions to support victims special Victim Counsel or victims Legal Counsel. And so those services that dont have policy to civilians assigned to as paralegals or other Legal Assistance to help their victim Legal Counsel special Victim Counsel discs asks a study as to whether that might be appropriate to maintain continuity of representation as in the representation of victims and the preservation of Institutional Knowledge when it comes to assisting victims in this capacity. Next is section 588 which i mentioned earlier, but again to the extent that the statute does require the services to provide counsel to the mystic violence victims this requires that this Service Report or dod to report how the services are going about the limitation and any Additional Resources that might be necessary and any additional law or policy changes that are required to implement that. Finally, i will end with the mention of the change to article 37 and that previously that section was previously called on lawfully influencing the action of the court under the new statutory title called command influence and this is the most significant change to the unlawful command influence law, unlawful command influence statute since 1968. Theres been quite a bit of caselaw that is been involved since then the most significant statutory change. A couple of key points from this that are worth mentioning before you your awareness is that it now protects preliminary hearing officers and special Victims Counsel then previously and i wont say excluded but not specifically mentioned in the statutory protections against unlawful command influence and if providing two significant expansions that had previously not been included in the statute. The first is allow for expressly authorizes known what do not advocate next it also allows more also specifically allows more communication between superior and subordinate authorities in discussing military Justice Matters as long as the superior does not direct a specific disposition or substitute the subordinates discretion. Allows a sub ordinary indiana to seek counsel and mentorship but still protects a case from a superior commander directing a particular disposition. The next major expansion of the article is it requires to shoe prejudice to reso if relief and the violation must materially prejudice a material right of the accused in order to obtain relief under article 37, which is, again, change to the current state of the law. And so with that, i appreciate your patience. I ran through a numb of the provisions of the ndaa. Hope it wasnt too dried but i tried to identify those that express other provisions that may be relevant to you its distresses the investigation, prosecution and defense and also say victim support through the military justice process. So with that im able to answer any questions if you have any or i yield the floor. Yep. I have a quick question. Related to section 538 notification of significant events does that include submission of kits, analysis of the kit, things like that, or is this just strictly related to investigator like the actual investigation and moving through the actual process . I read this to solely address process. As it moves through each step of the process, i dont know if the drafters were thinking of what i will call investigative steps outside of the normal flow of a case but it is certainly a point worth noting. Still is not considered part of the calculus right now where 538 is concerned. That is my underring but im willing to stand corrected. Thank you. I hear you had a comment or question . I was just going to say doesnt sound Like Congress is very concerned but this area. That was sarcastic. Oh, okay. Im sorry, judge, did you have a comment or no . No, no just observing theres obviously a great deal of congressional interest in this area that we are looking at. Well, i heard you, judge. Do you have a comment . I dont. Thats all right. Thats all right. Its too hard to hear. Just an observation. Obviously a lot of congressional interest in this area. Judge, thank you. Thank you so much. I hope you have an enormous wall calendar for all of these due dates and hope you dont plan to sleep. Thank you, maam. Thank you very much. Were just going to take a brief stretch in place break while the staff arranges for our Public Comments. [inaudible] questions [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] thank you very much for coming to speak with us. I know you made a request for Public Comment and we look howard to hearing what you have to say. Thank you so much. I realize i am what stands between you and being i will be brief. Take all the time you want. I would like to thank the steamed members. Im a survivor of Sexual Assault, military sexual small, committed by my father, now retired out army major general. For the past five years ive lived and still living as a victim through the investigation, the prosecution, and the defense of my Sexual Assault. First through the military Justice System and now the civilian Justice System. Today aisle not here as an individual but a representative for a Broader Group of military Sexual Assault surviveows. Survivors together. Were here to provide a room for voices of victims and navigating the military Justice System. It is because of those first hand experienced that we are well equipped and eager to be active participants in creating fair and comprehensive change. We are more than our stories. We want more than just to be told we are sorry for what you experienced. We want to be as actively sought after and respect for the contribution we ick make to improvement as are so many others, legislators, experts, judges, prosecutors, defenses, dead deers who are committed to the building of a system which is fair and functional. One way in which we sought to participate is through ongoing conversations with legislators or specific concerns, observations observations and idea that are based on our experiences. Last year we spoke with legislators on specific topic of sentencing and restrictions placed on victims in the process. The resticks severely limit what a victim my include in their victim impact statements as well as how the statements are delivered. Specific experiences include redlining of statements before being given, not being allowed to complete the statement in delivery, being cut off by judges, the enact to say anything about our preference or desire for sentencing. While i have not yet had a chance to give an impact statement i was close enough in the article 32 process to have been asked to begin preparing my thoughts. Preparing myself for that moment to sit in a room with by father, look him in the eye and tell him the impact of his actions was of extraordinary importance. To have been restrict as to what i could or could not have said was a reenactment of the very message of insisted silence of my perpetrator. What we know an neck totally we strongly believe represents a common experience of survivors of military Sexual Assault that get to the stage in the process. We do not, however, have the data to support that belief. We hope as this committee continues to gather informing data in many areas, that this specific topic would be included in those efforts. Victims are watching this process. Theyre making the determination of whether or not it is safe to come forward. Is the process fair . A victim having the freedom to speak freely at sentencing is the one way that they can know or one way they can know the answer is, yes. In closing id like to share with you the appreciation from various members of survivors united who have had the opportunity to come before you in the past. Personally, i have experienced the results of the hard work by you and others in for the Armed Services and making improvements. I did want to share a story of a Life Experience with the prosecutor in my case. In the first meeting with the Prosecutorial Team, without may having said anything i walked into a room and they knew the impact of being in a room filled with members of the Armed Services in uniform and showed up in civilian clothes. It was profound. Profoundly kind. By the time we got to the preliminary hearing and i was to go before the judge for the and be cross examined and give testimony, the uniforms are required and the fancy ones. Not the comfortable ones. And i was standing nervously in the hallway and the army captain, main prosecutor, came up to me and silently whispered to me with her hand over her army balance and said this your army, we choose you. Thank you for the work you are doing put the broader facts together that allow for real change to happen. We look forward to working with you on an ongoing basis. Thank you. And im happy to take questions. Thank you. Does anybody have questions for her . So, one of the areas that youre concerned about having victims restricted is a specific sentence recommendation, or however specific they want to be. Is another we heard dish asked i asked the judges earlier for their thoughts and read him the statute and one of the other areas they said they had limited victims testimony was win theres a piece of evidence that the judge ruled what indiana missable and the victim to the victim it was significant matter they wanted because it helped explain the impact of the offense on them. Yes. Is that Something Else you think we should look at . Absolutely. I have a very passionate answer to that, just because the completion of my experience with Sexual Assault spans over a period of 15 years, and so the totality of those experiences sets the context for any one experience. So, the importance of evidence being admitted more broadly than just what otherwise might make sense is incredibly important in my opinion in these cases. Okay. Do you have any if you do now, know of other categories thats great, please let us know. You shouldnt have asked me that. I have a list of 20 become here. Well, give us our give the staff the list and there are specific things we can talk to people about as were going on site visits and asking people in the field and talk to special Victims Counsel and victims Legal Counsel. Be very happy. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I had a question. You were here all day. Halfway through the day. I missed the judges testimony. The judges told us that they dont give reasons at sentencing for why they have imposed the sentence. They just say a term of years, and i thought both for the defendant who has been convicted and the sentence is imposed as well as the victim, that they would want to know the reasons the judge imposes a sentence. Im just curious if obviously from the victims viewpoint if you would want to hear the reasons why the judge imposed the sentence or the ultimate sentence. It is something we have had a lot of sentiment about and experience, it is very frustrating for there to be silence on either side, whether its a conviction, acquittal or any judgment made. One of our Group Members in fact had a full acquittal in her case, and has nothing to point to as to why that was the case, and really is shut done even in asking the question. Theres no dialogue. So, extraordinarily painful and, again, back to my comment about victims watching, i know one thing that department of defense and the Armed Services are focused on are getting accurate numbers of how many what exactly is the extent of this epidemic, and i believe it is. I believe people are watching, and i the facts come together and for victims that see these things, where im going to really put myself out there and incur a huge cost to tell a story and i no. In chances are one direction or the other of having a conviction and then not having an explanation is very heavy on the side of not saying anything. Did you have a question . I didnt have a question. Just wanted to thank you very much for coming in to speak to us today. We really appreciate it. This is paul graham, the chair. If i could have one comment to add to echo entirely what was said. In the federal court, i know that there are statutory victims rights that have been enacted by congress in the last few years, and that it is very frequent to have both written submissions in federal court that are provided in sentencings and that it is not at all infrequent for me to read from, if not the entirety, sometimes unfortunately i get dozens of them, and reading from all of this is not possible but to help the defendant understand the impact of the conduct and an opportunity to speak in person, and whether or not the victim chooses to do it or not, it has been my personal observation that the ability of the victim to have their experience shared with the defendant is something that is instructive not only to the defendant but also even if the outcome is a lesser sentence than what the victim might have hoped for, help them understand and i have been enormously impressed by the grace and dignity of the victims under these circumstances, and sometimes quite candidly their forgiveness. Thank you for being here. I believe you mentioned that you testified, if im not correct. Correct me, but you testified at a 32 hearing . The preliminary hearing before the 32. And how did you feel about that . Because were looking into questions about that and i just want we want to know your feelings. The advice and counsel i was given prior to the preliminary hearing was that much work had been done to protect victims from having to testify at the preliminary hearing. In this particular case the advisers, the Prosecutorial Team felt it was very important for the judge to hear from me in the preliminary hearing, and so it was my choice to either take the protection that is im afforded to testify, and i chose to testify, and it was hmm a lot to say. It was extraordinarily difficult and i have had a vision in years gone by that moment of sitting in a courtroom and being allowed to answer questions truthfully would make a difference and fix something, and it was important but then to be subject to crossexamination and having judgments made on different aspects of different activities that for me were devastating, some thrown out, some kept in, and know that my testimony was having a lot to do with what was given validity and what wasnt, was a learning experience. One of our concerns is, if you dont testify at the preliminary hearing it and does go to courtmartial, you have no idea, and its kind of like a blindside in some respects. So, given that i would have been better prepared for the 32 had we made it there. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Its good to see you. I want to make sure i understood part of your statement. You mentioned that one of the things some of your members have experienced is i think you talk about redlining or cutting out, which certainly used to happen in the civilian system a couple of decades ago. Youre saying some of your members have had people redline. Thats correct. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming and sharing your experience. It will be very helpful to us as we continue our work in this area. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Colonel, do you have any last matters . Just want to draw your attention to the next Public Meeting is may 15th. But i know the working groups have had some conversations about meeting before and in between that Public Meeting. No. Theres so more work to be done so the staff will be contacting you to take care of that. Next week ill shoot out an email that gives you almost the next year and a halfs dates that have been expected for the Public Meetings but theyll fall abruptly in the same month. Want to emphasize the importance of these courtroom or courtmartial observations because what we envision as a staff, you have heard a lot of information about what transpires in a courtroom. So, when you all go out and observe courtmartials, on sure courtmartials from Different Services and then what we like to have if not everybody, a large number of the committee that has gone and witnesses two, three, four, however many you can fit into your schedule and then come back and have a discussion about what you saw, the good, bad, not specifically pointing out prosecutor weir was horrible but generally what you saw in the courtmartials. I think the members who have seen trials already have a frame of reference when theyre listening to what the military judges are talking about and i think that is vitally important. Remember for the site visits you can submit questions about what you think is important, so if you are a former highspeed investigator, that would be the person who would submit questions for investigators. So, what well do is gather all the questions up in a format and it will be prosecutor questions by the various types of folks we want to talk to, and then well try to come up with a i wont say a one to whatever it is of number one most important but well try to get the questions in some type of order that makes sense as far as trying to make sense out of the site visits. I think its important that as was pointed out by glenn, that the doctor says these site visits can have Research Analysis can be done on the questions, and so it would make sense to have all the same questions asked, or refined as we go to various installations. Maam, thats all i have just for planning purposes, the site visits, you have them listed for three days. Is that two days of travel and one day of site visit or is that a threeday site visit . Thats including travel. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] and that wraps up the daylong meet offering the Defense Advisory Committee on Sexual Assault in the military. I you missed our live coverage the entire event is able to view online at cspan2. Org, just type Defense Advisory Committee on Sexual Assault in the military in the video search box on the home page. [inaudible conversations] follow campaign 2020 to the nevada this weekend. Saturday night, line at 11 00 p. M. Eastern, Democratic Candidates joe biden, pete buttigieg, senator Amy Klobuchar, tom steir, senator bernie sanners and senator Elizabeth Warren speak before clark county democrats and on sunday live at 5 00 p. M. Eastern, joe biden, pete buttigieg, senator Amy Klobuchar and tom steir speak toot forum on instruction. Live coverage on cspan. Watch on demand at cspan. Org or his on the cspan radio app. This weekend we are live from the savannah book festival beginning on saturday. Coverage includes editor of the american scholar, Robert Wilson , on the life of pt beenum. Then at 11 30, environmental lawyer on his 20 year legal battle against dupont. At 12 45. The recounting of the journey of 18 black men admit bid harvard in 1959. At 2 00, Edward Larson on the partnership between George Washington and benjamin franklin. And at 4 30 p. M. Caterpillar Foundation President Michelle Sullivan on leadership. Watch our live coverage of the to ton festival of books next month on booktv on cspan2. Students from the across the country told us the most important issue norse president ial candidates are address are climate change, gun violence, teen vaping, college affordability, mental health, and immigration. Were awarding 100,000 in total cash prizes. The winners for this years Student Competition will be announced march 11th. Next, more from campaign 2020 with democratic president ial