RADM Lorge Affidavit

Raw OCR

This is machine-extracted text to help readers search the document. It may contain errors. Use the PDF above for exact wording.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ARMED FORCES

UNITED STATES,

Appellee

v.

Keith E. Barry
Senior Chief Special Warfare
Operator (E-8)
United States Navy,

Appellant

DECLARATION OF RADM
PATRICK J. LORGE, USN (RET.)

Crim.App. Dkt. No. 201500064

USCA Dkt. No. 17-0162/NA

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES:

I, Patrick J. Lorge, USN (ret), do hereby swear and attest that the following
is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge:

1. I am a retired Rear Admiral in the United States Navy.

2. In 2015, I was the General Court-Martial Convening Authority in the
matter of United States v. Barry.

3. In that capacity I reviewed the trial in the post-trial clemency phase.

4. Upon review of the record, I had serious misgivings about the evidence
supporting this conviction. Specifically, I did not believe the evidence supported
the alleged victim's account of events. I was inclined to disapprove the findings.

5. My Staff Judge Advocate was CDR Dominic Jones and my Deputy Staff
Judge Advocate was LCDR Jon Dowling. They advised me on my legal options
regarding this case, and tried to convince me to approve the findings in the case.

6. As I considered whether to disapprove the findings, I was also concerned
about the impact to the Navy if I were to disapprove the findings. At the time, the
political climate regarding sexual assault in the military was such that a decision to
disapprove findings, regardless of merit, would bring hate and discontent on the
Navy from the President, as well as senators including Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.
I was also aware of cases from other services that became high profile and received
extreme negative attention because the convening authorities upset guilty findings
in sexual assault cases.

7. I perceived that if I were to disapprove the findings in the case, it would
adversely affect the Navy. Everyone from the President down the chain and
Congress would fail to look at its merits, and only view it through the prism of
opinion. Even though I was convinced then, and am convinced now, that I should
have disapproved the findings, my consideration of the Navy's interest in avoiding
the perception that military leaders were sweeping sexual assaults under the rug
outweighed that conviction at the time.

8. Prior to my action in this case, VADM Nanette DeRenzi, the then-Judge
Advocate General of the Navy, expressed a similar concern to me about the
reputation of the Navy in a conference in my office, although she did not address
this specific case. This was a personal conversation, not part of an instruction or
informational course. She conveyed the importance that convening authorities
held and how tenuous the ability of an operational commander to act as a
convening authority had become, especially in findings or sentences in sexual
assault cases due to the intense pressure on the military at the time. She mentioned
that every three or four months military commanders were making court-martial
decisions that got questioned by Congress and other political and military leaders
including the President. This conversation reinforced my perception of the
political pressures the Navy faced at the time.

9. In addition to the advice from my staff judge advocates, I also discussed
the case with then-RADM Crawford, who is now the Judge Advocate General of
the Navy.

10. I have known VADM Crawford since 2001. LT McMahon's questions
about my action in this case led me to recall--vaguely--conversations I had with
VADM Crawford, in my office and on the telephone, about my action.

11. Upon my review of the record of trial from this case, I did not find that
the Government proved the allegation against Senior Chief Barry beyond a
reasonable doubt. Absent the pressures described above, I would have disapproved
the findings in this case.

12. On a personal note, I would ask you to forgive my failure in leadership
and right the wrong that I committed in this case against Senior Chief Barry;
ensure justice prevails and when doubt exists, allow a man to remain innocent.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing information is true and correct.

Date: [handwritten: 5 MAY '17]

Signed: [signature]
Patrick J. Lorge