Evening star., 1945-04-05
Army Injustice

IlC w Oh %SP0A CAAiSAAo 0AAASAoA VAAo
decided to cancel court-martial pro-
ceedings against four colored WACS
"in the interest of strictest justice
toward the accused" should be in
terested in the case of Sidney Sha-
piro, whose experience with Army
Justice" is reminiscent of some Of
the grimmer accounts of the meth
ods used by the Gestapo.
In September, 1943, Shapiro was
q lieutenant in the Army Air Forces.
stationed at Grand Island. Nebras-
ka. He had studied law at Boston
University, and was assigned to de-
fend an enlisted man-FauSto Agre-
dano-who was to be court-martialed
on a charge of assault with intent
to rape. The case turned on ques-
ton of Identification and Shapiro
doubted that Agredano was the
guilty person. So he decided at the
trial to substitute another soldier
for the defendant, and the witnesses
for the prosecution positively iden-
tilted the imposter as being the man
who had committed the offense.
Shapiro then disclosed that the man
identified was not the real Defend
ant, whereupon mistrial was de-
clared. A few days later Agredano,
an illiterate, was again brought to
trial the same witnesses who had
previously identified the wrong man
positively identified him, and he was
convicted and sentenced to five years
in prison.
The Army then turned its atten-
ton to Shapiro. On September 8,
at 1910 pm, he was served with
charges under 96th Article of War.
This is a catch-all section. but the
burden of the complaint was that
he had effected delay in the order
ly progress of the court-martial." :"
At 2 pm.-80 minutes after being
charged-he was forced to stand
trial. Counsel of his choice was de-
MED him and he was obliged to ac-
cept the services of two lieutenants
with no legal experience. Shapiro
asked for seven-day continuance,
pointing out that he had had no op-
portunity to prepare defense and
that his inexperienced counsel we're
wholly unfamiliar with the case.
ToiS rof11col ooI fhn
trial proceeded At $50 pm.-less
than five hours after he, had been
served with charges-he was ad-
judged guilty and ordered to be dis
missed from the service This SEN
tence subsequently was approved
by his commanding officer and by
the President, who probably knew
nothing of the facts. On January
4, 1914, Shapiro was stripped of his
commission and dismissed from the
service.
Asserting that his career had been
ruined and that his reputation had
been irreparably damaged, Shapiro
then turned to the civil courts. He
contended that he had been denied
a fair trial within the meaning of
the dug process clause of the fifth
amendment and the 10th Article of
War, which undoubtedly was the
case. This effort was blocked, how
ever, when the Department of JUS
tice, representing the Secretary of
War, raised the technical but legal
ly correct objection that a civil
court cannot review a court-martial
judgment.
So Shapiro found himself both
out of court and out of the Army.
To some extent, he was able to clear
his own reputation by then entering
the Army as private and serving
until honorably discharged. But no
fact has been brought to light which
even remotely tends to clear the
reputation of the Army officers re-
sponsible for the outrageous treat
ment of this young officer And one
might think that the War Depart
ment would hesitate to speak of its
regard for "strictest justice" in any
case so long as it permits the gross
injustice done Shapiro to go un-