The appeals court can't hear witnesses - they know that and take that into consideration when weighing the evidence. Great deference is given to the trier of fact who heard the witnesses and had the opportunity to judge their credibility. There is much more to this case than "he said, she said." Here, it was the circumstantial evidence that led to the acquittal. The woman claimed she was asleep in her sleeping bag with it over her head, and awoke to the male in her sleeping bag digitally penetrating her - How the hell does that happen? There were fellow cadets feet away, but no one heard a thing. She was sleeping on a crinkly space blanket, but again, no one heard a thing. It is unusual for an appellate court to find, as a matter of law, that the evidence was insufficient to justify a conviction, but here, the circumstantial evidence all points to the male telling the truth when he said they were holding their breath at times and actively seeking to avoid detection - how else could a rape avoid detection under these circumstances?She said she did not consent. And was believed in her trial. The appeals court did not hear witnesses. I maintain that the process is flawed. None of us , nor the appeals court, quite honestly, knows better than the original trial panel. The thinking here is an excellent example of why people don’t report and this problem flourishes
That’s right. She said she did not consent. He said she did. Whether a jury believes a witness is relatively uncorrelated with truth of testimony.
The problem is a problem because it is very difficult to prove a negative and in most rape cases, consent is the heart of the matter. But, the system, in my opinion cannot flip to prove consent happened or guilty.
"Rape Freeze" is a horrible concept - how the hell is one party to a presumably consensual act supposed to know it isn't consensual if the other party never expresses a lack of consent? It's a dubious concept that is even more dubious when one considers the woman is a fit, confident officer in training with with fellow cadets mere feet away. There should never have been a conviction on these facts in the first place. Luckily,the appellate court was unswayed by the current political environment and the less than stellar history of the Army in dealing with sexual assault, which are irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
I’m keeping an eye on this thread just out of pure interest for the debate. However, I have to say the following:
Be thankful you are in a position to believe “rape freeze” is only a concept. I hope you or the people you care about only ever have to think about it as a concept. It’s real and it doesn’t matter what profession someone is in or the training that they’ve been given. It doesn’t matter what your gender is, ask the guys who continue to have the lowest level of reporting of assaults. As @Capt MJ said, you hope that when it happens to you, you’ll fight back. That’s what women are told and taught to do, from the time we’re told not to talk to strangers until the time we’re told to hold our keys between are fingers as we walk to our cars alone. But, you don’t know until it happens. I didn’t.
Whether or not the alleged victim experienced rape freeze or not isn’t the issue, it’s whether or not the act was consensual. How are you supposed to know? By both parties using their brains and each getting verbal consent beforehand instead of relying on nonverbal cues that have proven time and time again to be difficult to understand. Is it romantic? No. But at least you know where the line is.
I won’t comment on whether or not I feel the accused is innocent or not. Frankly, it’s irrelevant at this point because three judges overturned the conviction, he is free, and life will go on. Sexual assault continues to be one of the most difficult crimes to try for the multiple reasons other posters have already mentioned. That aside, to have the opportunity to live in a country where appellate courts exist is a privilege. Because it’s a privilege, there are going to be times where appellate judges get it right and where they get it wrong. From there, it’s up to us to decide for ourselves which category their decision fell under. That’s the nature of an imperfect system. The question is, do the times they potentially get it wrong outweigh the times they get it right? It’s the same question that applies to the entire judicial system.
.... and further, what are we most comfortable enduring, a free guilty person or an imprisoned/executed innocent? Our system is balanced toward the former. I agree with that.
The recent me too movement and increased scrutiny here has added a further wrinkle and that’s encouraging that we believe accusers. I think this is a muddy space. In a personal context or therapy, yes. Give the benefit of the doubt to an accuser. In a legal context, it is inappropriate based on the underlying values of our legal system. He should likely never have been tried much less convicted given the presented evidence available, the logic being consistent with the appellate decision. Insufficient evidence.