US Air Force Captain Gets 6 Months After UK Strangling Conviction at Lakenheath Court-Martial
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jun 25
US Air Force Captain Gets 6 Months After UK Strangling Conviction at Lakenheath Court-Martial
1 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jun 25
Summary
Six months in confinement and dismissal from the Air Force were imposed on Capt Jacob Wulfson after a US military panel at RAF Lakenheath convicted him of strangling British academic Sarah Steele and disobeying orders not to contact her.
Eight male Air Force officers—stationed on the same base as Wulfson—acquitted him of non-consensual penetration and a drug-related charge, then chose the sentence after prosecutors sought five years and the maximum available was 13.
Steele said Wulfson ignored her written boundary of “No hands on my neck,” and woke in a bathtub injured and confused; she later called the court-martial degrading and said it felt as if she, not Wulfson, was on trial.
Cambridgeshire police ceded investigative primacy to US authorities even though the alleged assault happened off duty in Cambridge, highlighting broader criticism that Britain is letting the US military handle serious crimes against UK civilians.
The case now goes automatically to an Air Force appeals court in Maryland, while the public record otherwise amounts to a sparse docket entry that omits the British victim and the Cambridge setting.
When US military justice operates on UK soil, does it protect local victims or its own soldiers?
How does one pilot's assault trial test the legal agreements governing 75,000 US troops across Europe?
From Conviction to Appellate Reform: Captain Covitz, Panel Bias, and the Future of Military Domestic Violence Law
Overview
Captain Covitz’s case highlights how procedural challenges, such as the defense’s claim of implied bias against a panel member who volunteered at a domestic violence shelter, can shape the outcome of a military trial. The initial conviction for sexual assault led to a severe sentence, but the appellate court later found that the military judge abused his discretion by not excusing the potentially biased panel member. This error resulted in the conviction being overturned and a rehearing with a much lighter sentence, showing how concerns about fairness and impartiality are central to the military justice process.