SERGEANT "B"

The Airmen were immediately arrested and later, turned over to the Air Police.

An attempt was made by Base officials to purge Sergeant A by administrative action. Sergeant B was safe from local wrath by being a visitor from another base far removed. The administrative action failed because regulations provided that offenses punishable by court-martial would not be handled administratively, that is, by "paper punishment."

Therefore, court-martial charges were brought against Sergeant A under the "catch all" provisions of Article 134 of the Code. Indecent Exposure was the offense charged.

This offense is common to the criminal law, and requires (1) the specific intent to expose one's self (2) to public view, which does not include exposure to one person only, and (3) exposure in such a manner and place that it may be seen by the "casual observer."

The gravamen of the offense is publicity which was conspicuously lacking in the prosecution's case. The Airmen were obviously drunk, and intent was affected sufficiently thereby to cast serious doubt upon their ability to form deliberate intent. There was no publicity whatsoever; indeed, the Airmen had taken precaution to hide themselves in an automobile behind foliage; and by no stretch of the imagination can policemen with flashlights at 2:00 a.m., investigating a parked car, be considered as "casual observers."

These points were energetically emphasized at trial to no avail. Prejudice, emotion and plain fear ruled the nineman court. Sergeant A was convicted as charged. He was sentenced to reduction to the lowest pay grade, Airman Basic; forfeiture of two-thirds of his monthly pay for three months, and confinement at hard labor for a like period.

However, on appeal to the next court of review, the contentions of the defense were confirmed, and the conviction reversed. Sergeant A was released, his rank restored and his money returned.

Thus, in the sometimes bleak pic-. ture, a bright spot shows, where the law properly used is yet sufficient to overturn injustice. It should be borne in mind that conviction in a military court is never conclusive. It is subject to at least one automatic review by a higher court, and may reach the Court of Military Appeals. In many respects the military trial offers more hope of fairness than comparable civilian hearings. There is concerted effort to blot out the bitter rememberances of a freshly past day when the top sergeant was both accuser and judge and the sentences meted out a carry-back to the Inquisition. SergeantA, still a successful and efficient Airman, is a good example of the effort.

Footnote: This pertinent and revealing article was furnished ONE in March, 1955, and describes an episode occuring under military laws and regulations prevailing at that time.