General asks for Panetta's emails
RALEIGH — Lawyers representing an Army general facing sexual assault charges are asking a military judge to force prosecutors to turn over any emails related to the case sent or received by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
A court martial is set to begin next month at Fort Bragg for Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair on charges including forcible sodomy, indecent acts, violating orders and adultery.
In a motion filed Tuesday as part of a pre-trial hearing, lawyers for Sinclair argue top Pentagon brass were receiving regular updates last year on the investigation and may have encouraged subordinates to make an example of Sinclair. They are also seeking any minutes from any meetings about the case attended by Panetta, then the military's top civilian leader.
It is unlawful in the military justice system for senior commanders to interfere in prosecutorial decisions, and Sinclair's lawyers are seeking to have the case against him dismissed.
Two of Sinclair's commanders, Gen. Dan Allyn and Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Colt, testified at a hearing earlier this month that there was no such pressure. Both generals testified they relied solely on their best judgment in deciding to charge and prosecute Sinclair.
In a separate motion, meanwhile, Sinclair's lawyers sought to have some of the general's own emails suppressed at trial.
Sinclair briefly took the witness stand at the hearing on Tuesday to talk about his use of a military computer in his office in Afghanistan, as well as compliance with password policies. It was the first time he has testified in the case.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.