A federal judge on Saturday rejected a lawsuit by a former U.S. Army sergeant who sought to overturn his military court-martial conviction for sexual assault.
U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta ruled against Trevar D. Tinsley, who argued that his constitutional rights were violated when military courts blocked him from obtaining the victim’s private mental health records. Mehta granted summary judgment to the federal government, concluding that the military justice system gave the legal questions in the case “full and fair consideration.”
The case originated from an early 2018 encounter after Tinsley met a woman, identified in court documents as A.B., on a dating app. According to the district court’s opinion, the woman testified during the court-martial that she initially complied with certain requests to “get it over with,” but Tinsley proceeded to assault her despite her refusing “over and over and over.”
A military panel subsequently convicted Tinsley of sexual assault under Article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Prior to his criminal trial, Tinsley sought an in-chambers judicial review of A.B.’s medical records, arguing they were necessary to evaluate her credibility and potential prior inconsistent statements.
The military trial judge denied the request under Military Rule of Evidence 513, which establishes a psychotherapist–patient privilege within the military justice system. Tinsley appealed, claiming the decision violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, ruling that Tinsley fell “woefully short” of his burden to demonstrate that the records would yield admissible evidence. The appellate court added that “any ‘constitutional exception’ to [Rule] 513 grounded in the Confrontation Clause does not exist,” following a 2014 congressional amendment that removed such an exception from the text of the rule. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces later denied a petition to review the case, prompting Tinsley to file a collateral attack in federal civilian court to declare his conviction void.
In the civil ruling, Judge Mehta noted that federal courts have narrow jurisdiction when reviewing military court-martial proceedings. To overturn a military judgment, a plaintiff must show that the military tribunals failed to thoroughly examine the claims.
Mehta found that the military courts repeatedly grappled with the constitutional questions raised by Tinsley, noting that the judges specifically analyzed “whether the lack of a Confrontation Clause exception to the psychotherapist–patient privilege is ‘clearly and unmistakably’ unconstitutional.”
Tinsley further contended that different branches of the military applied the privilege rule inconsistently, creating a “two-tier system of military justice.” Mehta rejected this claim, ruling that Tinsley failed to meet the foundational criteria to trigger a records review under any standard.
Mehta concluded that civilian courts must remain highly deferential to the military system, writing, “Settled law requires that courts like ours defer to the decisions of military courts, particularly when (like here) those courts interpret military rules.”
READ: Two US Troops Killed, One Missing In Jordan As Iranian Attacks Escalate Across Middle East
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
