Daniel A. Garcia Fireman (E-3), U.S. Coast Guard Convicted Sex Offender Aggravated Sexual Assault & Furnishing Alcohol To A Minor

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Children > Daniel A. Garcia

Name: Daniel A. Garcia

U.S. V. Garcia CGCMG0258

Docket No. 1317 3 June 2010

Plea: Not Guilty

Charges: Aggravated sexual assault and furnishing alcohol to a minor

Military Branch: U.S. Navy

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

Appellant was tried by general court-martial composed of members. Contrary to his pleas, Appellant was convicted of one specification of aggravated sexual assault upon a substantially incapacitated person, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and one specification of wrongfully furnishing alcohol to minors, in violation of Article 134, UCMJ.

The court sentenced Appellant to confinement for twenty-four months, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Convening Authority approved the sentence as adjudged.

On the evening of Friday, 4 January 2008, Appellant hosted a party at his home that was attended by, among others, female high school students MK and KRK. Appellant provided alcoholic beverages at the party, specifically to MK and KRK. KRK became drunk and went to sleep on the floor of Appellant’s bedroom. In the early hours of the morning, KRK awoke to find Appellant having sex with her. She immediately left and drove home.

On 9 January, the local police began an investigation of the incident, with two officers interviewing KRK.2 On the same day, Appellant’s command requested Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) to investigate. The next day, a CGIS agent arrived to investigate. The CGIS agent and a police officer made contact with one another and agreed to cooperate in their investigations of the incident. This was largely a matter of convenience for the investigators and for witnesses who would only have to be interviewed once. Each investigator remained in control of his own investigation and did not receive or give direction from or to the other. Each was going to investigate the incident regardless of the intentions of the other. Each produced a report. The police report was submitted to the county prosecutor, and the CGIS report was submitted to Appellant’s command.

On 11 January, the CGIS agent and a police officer approached Appellant at his duty station and requested his participation in a police interview. Appellant agreed, and they drove him to the police station. The interview was conducted by two police officers; the CGIS agent did not participate or observe, and did not consult with or assist the police officers in planning the interview. The police officers explained to Appellant that they did not want the CGIS agent in the room making Appellant think he was being forced to cooperate. They reminded him that they were not forcing him to come to the station and he was not required to talk with them. After a long narrative from Appellant about the incident, he was read a Miranda warning before focused questions were asked. Appellant agreed to continue the interview without a lawyer present. After the interview, one of the police officers told the CGIS agent in passing that Appellant did not remember much about the incident due to a claimed blackout.

Most other witness interviews, but not all, were conducted jointly with both the CGIS agent and a police officer present. The police re-interviewed KRK; the CGIS agent observed this interview but did not participate in it. The CGIS agent did not interview KRK.

The CGIS agent interviewed Appellant on 28 January at his duty station with no one else present. He advised Appellant of his Article 31(b) rights and included the advice that any prior statement made without an appropriate rights advisement could not be used against Appellant in a court-martial. Appellant waived his rights and answered questions, but declined to provide a written statement. The CGIS agent did not specifically mention the prior police interview. It was only after this interview that the CGIS agent viewed a video of the police interview with Appellant.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Article 66, UCMJ. Upon such review, the findings and sentence are determined to be correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. The record of trial shall be returned to the Convening Authority, who shall issue a new promulgating order free of errors.