CAPE MAY -- In what might well be an unprecedented opening to the public here May 1 at the Cape May Coast Guard Training Center of military criminal proceedings involving subject matter of the most sensitive kind, Gunner’s Mate 1st Class Wilson Medina faced his accuser, “J.M.,” a seaman assigned to Station Cape May and former recruit under his company command, in an open hearing on criminal charges he had non-consensual sex with him while the two were at Medina's home Nov. 10-11, 2007.

J.M. had graduated from basic training, but only recently arrived for his first Coast Guard assignment at Small Boat Station Cape May when the incident is alleged to have occurred.

Medina, married with three children, is accused of touching J.M.’s penis and performing fellatio on him in two incidents on the same night at Medina’s home, after Medina and J.M. spent the evening with Medina’s wife and children watching a boxing match, and drinking beer and vodka.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice controls the proceedings. Medina is charged with a violation of Article 125 of the Code, forcible sodomy, and of Article 120 abusive sexual contact. The maximum term of imprisonment on the sodomy charge is life without parole; seven years for the abusive sexual contact charge.

The court procedure, entitled an Article 32 Hearing, lasted from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. May 1 -- coincidentally, or ironically, Loyalty Day, the official holiday set by Congress in 1958 for the reaffirmation of loyalty to the United States and for the recognition of the heritage of American freedom – and consisted of testimony from four witnesses including J.M.

An Article 32 Hearing is similar to the Grand Jury process in New Jersey, or the preliminary hearing process in Pennsylvania, in that it is designed to determine whether enough evidence exists to proceed further in the criminal process, in this case, to a court-martial, or alternatively to non-judicial punishment or dismissal.

While the Article 32 Hearing process shares some of the same constitutional protections embodied in the civilian criminal process, and has some procedural similarities, several distinctions were apparent.

The government has to show “reasonable grounds” that the elements of the crimes occurred, which is a low evidentiary standard. Rather than a judge, an Investigating officer presides at an Article 32 Hearing.

Unlike the Grand Jury, where evidence is presented solely by the prosecutor, evidence in an Article 32 Hearing is presented by both the government and the defense.

Another distinction allows the defendant to submit a sworn, or unsworn written statement on the charges to the investigating officer to be made part of the record, or to testify under oath subject to cross examination, or to testify, but not under oath.

Unlike a Grand Jury or a preliminary hearing, the investigating officer after reviewing the evidence does not issue any charging documents. Instead, he or she issues a report summarizing the evidence presented and makes a recommendation to the “convening authority,” who, in this instance, is Capt. Sandra L. Stosz, Coast Guard Training Center Cape May (TRACEN) Commanding Officer.

She will then determine whether to proceed to court-martial based on the recommendation, which she may follow at her discretion.

Conceding the “reasonable grounds” burden of proof for the government to muster was low, Defense Attorney Dale F. Saran quipped that anyone could meet that burden.

“I could indict a ham sandwich,” he said.

But he reiterated in his summation to Investigating Officer Lt. Cmdr. Russell E. Bowman that, nevertheless, it was solely the government’s burden to muster the evidence necessary. He argued that J.M.’s statements to investigating officers and to friends and supervising officers were rife with inconsistencies (see related story).

Bowman has been assigned to the Cape May Coast Guard base, full-time, for “as long as it takes” to complete his report, said Chief Warrant Officer Veronica Bandrowsky, base spokesperson.

(Ed. note: The Herald has abided by the request of Coast Guard officials not to identify the accuser in this matter - at this time - owing to the sensitive nature of the charges.)