Naval Academy chief sets aside judge's recommendation; orders midshipmen to stand trial in alleged sexual assault
Midshipmen Eric Graham (left) and Midshipman Joshua Tate are accused of taking part in an alleged sexual assault at an off-campus party in April 2012. Both were former Navy football players.
Photo by AP
The superintendent of the Naval Academy set aside the recommendation of a military judge Thursday and ordered two former Navy football players to face court-martial in the alleged sexual assault of a female midshipman, attorneys for the accused men said.
Joshua Tate, 21, of Nashville will be tried on a charge of aggravated sexual assault, and Eric Graham, 21, of Eight Mile, Ala., will be tried on a charge of abusive sexual contact. Both are also charged with making false statements.
A third ex-player, Tra'ves Bush, 22, of Johnston, S.C., who was charged with aggravated sexual assault, will not face court-martial. Bush was prevented from graduating in May while the case was pending. All charges against him have been dismissed, said his attorney, Andrew Weinstein.
Attorneys for all three men said the military judge, Cmdr. Robert P. Monahan Jr., who presided over the Article 32 hearing and filed a 174-page report to Academy Superintendent Michael Miller last week, did not recommend that any of the three midshipmen face court-martial. Academy Lt. Cmdr. John Schofield said he could not discuss details of the judge's report until the case was over.
However, Schofield said Miller's decision was consistent with the judge's findings about what probably occurred at an April 2012 off-campus party, where the alleged sexual assault occurred. The victim, now a 21-year-old senior, testified that she was drinking heavily that night and could not remember much of what had happened.
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.