AIR FORCE TIMES
Varying sentences for MTI conduct reflect uniqueness of cases
Staff Sgt. Annamarie Ellis arrives at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland for
her trial on maltraining and maltreating basic trainees charges. (Jerry Lara /
San Antonio Express-News)
A foul-mouthed former military training instructor who threatened to send
recruits home in body bags and made them work out naked will spend eight months
in jail before she leaves the Air Force with a bad conduct discharge.
Ex-Staff Sgt. Annamarie Ellis, who was also busted to airman basic, pleaded
guilty last month to two dozen counts of maltreatment, cruelty, dereliction of
duty and obstruction of justice while working at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland
in 2009 and 2010.
Another MTI convicted of arguably more serious charges in a similar case a
year ago was sentenced to less jail time and got to stay in the Air Force, at
least for the time being.
Then-Tech. Sgt. Bobby Bass physically abused trainees, forced them to crowd
naked together in a shower and apply muscle cream to their genitals. He lost one
stripe.
The relatively disparate punishments illustrate how no two cases are ever
alike, even if they appear to be, military law experts say.
“No two defendants are the same and no two crimes are the same,” said
Geoffrey Corn, a South Texas College law professor and retired Army judge
advocate general.
Ellis is one of 30 MTIs sent to trial in the last two years as part of a
sweeping investigation of instructor misconduct. She is the only former trainee
among them not accused of a sexual offense.
Twenty-eight of the 30 cases have resulted in convictions on some or all
charges.
The offenses were far-ranging: Rape, sexual assault, consensual sexual
relationships with basic trainees and technical trainees, adultery,
unprofessional relationships over social media, maltraining, obstruction and
false official statements. So were the sentences, from 20 years in prison to no
jail time.
Five former MTIs — Staff Sgt. Ryan Deraas, Master Sgt. Jamey Crawford, Staff
Sgt. William Romero, Staff Sgt. John Gerbick and Staff Sgt. Emily Allen —
convicted last spring of unprofessional relationships with multiple trainees got
jail sentences that ranged from 45 days to seven months.
On the low end was Gerbick, convicted of unprofessional relationships with
two technical trainees, adultery and giving a false statement.
Crawford, who had sexual relationships with two women, including one who had
graduated from basic just one day before, got seven months and a bad conduct
discharge. Crawford was also convicted of adultery and false official
statements.
Two ex-staff sergeants convicted of rape saw a 16-year difference in their
prison sentences. Luis Walker was sentenced to 20 years; Eddy Soto to four
years. Soto, who was married at the time of the crimes, admitted to having sex
with two women, including a technical trainee, but denied the rape. Walker, who
was also married, had sexual relationships with several of the nine other women
he victimized.
Corn said those sentences aren’t as disparate as they might appear. MTIs who
engaged in improper relationships received similar sentences. Felony cases saw a
wider range, which is how it should be, Corn said.
“If the sentences were all the same, I would be really worried. That would
tell me judges are applying implied sentencing guidelines, which they aren’t
supposed to do,” Corn said. “Each case is supposed to be decided on its own
merit. The punishment should fit the crime, the criminal, the victim and all the
circumstances around it.”
'No right answer'
There are no sentencing guidelines under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, said Lt. Col. Erik Coyne, a judge advocate general, who was speaking
about the process and not the MTI cases. “There is no right answer. The right
answer is individualized to the particular accused.”
A contrite defendant who admits to his or her crime may escape jail time for
an offense an unrepentant perpetrator gets a few months or more for, Coyne said.
“All those factors play in to why a sentence may go one way or another.”
Some sentences serve as retribution, said Coyne, “what we think of as
punishment.” Prosecutors may also argue for a sentence in an effort to deter a
would-be perpetrator, to rehabilitate the accused, to protect society or, in the
military, to establish good order and discipline — or some combination of these
five so-called principals of sentencing, he said.
Defense attorneys may use the same principals to make a counter-argument,
Coyne said.
Every case is unique, not just in the circumstances and accused, but the jury
selected, retired JAG Lt. Col. Sally Stenton said.
“Each member of the panel is an individual. The victims are all individuals.
They all have their own backgrounds,” Stenton said. “Not every victim is a Girl
Scout or a Boy Scout. You can have someone who is a victim of a serious crime
who is not sympathetic. There’s an ugliness to that. People don’t like to talk
about that. It is a factor.”
While a service member’s military record can no longer be considered when
deciding whether to bring charges, it is still relevant at sentencing, Corn
said. “When you have a sentencing hearing, no two airmen are the same in terms
of their background, prior professional achievements, number of former
colleagues willing to testify to their rehabilitative potential. So no two
sentences will ever be the same.”
Only a handful of crimes, including premeditated murder and aiding the enemy,
carry mandatory sentences, Corn said.
The National Defense Authorization Act passed in December added to that,
requiring dishonorable discharges or the officer equivalent of dismissals for
any service member convicted of rape, sexual assault and forcible sodomy.
Except for those offenses, Corn said, “every crime under the code is subject
to a full and comprehensive sentencing hearing. Then the sentencing authority,
whether a judge or panel, is instructed they have to consider from no punishment
to the maximum authorized by the statute,” he said.
Ellis faced more than 43 years on the two dozen specifications she pleaded
guilty to. She got eight months. Bass also faced decades in prison but was
sentenced to six months.
“It’s very rare in a court-martial you’ll get a maximum penalty,” Corn said.
Judges and jurors “are supposed to err on the side of leniency. They shouldn’t
be lenient, but when selecting a sentence, you select one that serves the
purpose that is the lowest in consideration.”
When considering a sentence, a panel, or jury, is instructed to begin at the
low end and work up, Corn said. “As soon as they reach a consensus, they stop
voting. They never even consider most sentences.”
“I think the most important point is the Air Force has been pretty diligent
in bringing these cases to trial. Justice is defined through the process. The
process woks, and it produces an outcome,” Corne said. “We have to be confident
the outcome was right for that case. That’s the system we live in.”
