Former USMA Cadet's rape conviction overturned

They found his semen in her sleeping bag. Do you all have evidence she consented? I doubt it

Without siding with one side or the other, the same argument can be made, "Do you all have evidence that she didn't" That was the issue with this case and why it was overturned. I would assume that neither person involved will change their story and that will follow them both for a long time.
 
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.
 
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

Does the problem "flourish?" Strong word. Make no mistake, I do not condone sexual assault. I just choke on hyperbole.

The appeals court had all the transcripts. And, as I said earlier, was composed of 2 female and 1 male military officer JUDGES. JUDGES who are experts in the law and at least one degree of separation from the USMA command influence of Kirsten Gillibrand and Sue Fulton.
 
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

Ok----if this is the thought process, why have appellate courts at all? if the trial court should be the court that is the best avenue for "truth", why do we even have appellate courts? Why is there a Supreme Court? If it is your position that the trial court should not be questioned, then you are also of the mind that a trial court is infallible. Are you willing to allow the Courts to render judgment, without the possibility of questioning such? without having an avenue to argue that the factual or legal basis was incorrect? Without having a check in place against a runaway trial court? Consider this--every Supreme Court case that you recognize--Miranda; Brown vs. Board of Educ.; Roe v Wade and countless others, are nearly all cases which reversed the finding of a trial court. Are you willing to give the findings of those cases, and more, back?

And, xyz321, the links you have shared are flawed. First Gillibrand's proposals have been unable to gain traction for passage since she started talking about the issue in 2013. Her proposals are much more wide ranging than just addressing the chain of command issue, while not addressing how the removal of the chain of command issue will be handled in real world situations. Counter bills argue that her process will lessen the reporting rather than increase it.

Secondly, the article posted in the armytimes is not accurate. Factual insufficiency is not a solely a military appellate element. It is a part of both the civilian criminal and civil legal arenas. The standards are slightly different, but the theory is essentially the same.

And, now that the accused is now the former accused, and not guilty, why is it that his name is continued to be publicized and hers continues to be protected? I understand and support her protections, but, now that he is no longer accused, does he not deserve protections as well?
 
Having participated as a juror, I contend that the trial panel is in the least advantageous position to judge credibility. Lacking expertise in evaluating responses of those being cross examined, they are expected to determine who is more credible. Con artists are seemingly the most credible, while many witnesses give honest responses that seem to lack credibility.

Additionally, jurors do not hear all of the evidence, only that which the court deems admissible. The panel must then render a decision based on strict guidelines from the court.

This case was the result of pressure from a Board of Visitors that, at the time, was stacked to push a narrow agenda. It was a stretch and should have never been prosecuted. The Appeals Court agreed.
 
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.
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?

"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.
 
They found his semen in her sleeping bag. Do you all have evidence she consented? I doubt it

xyz321--It is not the accused's burden to show she consented. It is the prosecutor's burden to show that she did not. in this case, the ruling was that the evidence was not sufficient to meet the burden that the prosecutor has to show there was a lack of consent on her part.
 
The jury in this case consisted of 6 West Point faculty and staff. You can all go ahead and defend this man. I’m glad you are comfortable in your position. Perhaps you could leave a little room in there to consider the possibility it really was a rape, and we may be returning a rapist to usma. Just as I can’t be 100 percent sure this is the case’ you can’t be that sure that it isn’t.
 
The army appeals court overturned this verdict without hearing a single witness.

> That's what appellate courts do, military or civilian. They had full access to the record of the case, reviewed the testimony and made a determination that the case against the defendant wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I just read the Appellate Decision, and saw no statement that the conviction was overturned because the alleged victim didn't cry out or fight back as widely reported in the press. They appellate panel merely concluded that there was not sufficient testimony to support the conviction.

The issue is not as clear as XYZ suggests. There are two sides to every case, and the truth often lies somewhere in between. We have long had a legal system premised upon the belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to mistakenly imprison an innocent person.

All that being said, I can't imagine that the Defendant would go back to USMA. I would expect that having sex while on field training exercise is a serious conduct offense, and could be separated on the basis of that alone.
 
The jury in this case consisted of 6 West Point faculty and staff. You can all go ahead and defend this man. I’m glad you are comfortable in your position. Perhaps you could leave a little room in there to consider the possibility it really was a rape, and we may be returning a rapist to usma. Just as I can’t be 100 percent sure this is the case’ you can’t be that sure that it isn’t.
Sure, there's a possibility it was rape. But there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt there was rape, which is the standard in this country. What do you want us to do, stone him to death because we aren't 100% certain he's innocent?
 
I maintain that the bar to prove sexual assault has been unreasonably high Ask Martha mcSally about her experience. I’m done.
 
The army appeals court overturned this verdict without hearing a single witness.

> That's what appellate courts do, military or civilian. They had full access to the record of the case, reviewed the testimony and made a determination that the case against the defendant wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I just read the Appellate Decision, and saw no statement that the conviction was overturned because the alleged victim didn't cry out or fight back as widely reported in the press. They appellate panel merely concluded that there was not sufficient testimony to support the conviction.

The issue is not as clear as XYZ suggests. There are two sides to every case, and the truth often lies somewhere in between. We have long had a legal system premised upon the belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to mistakenly imprison an innocent person.

All that being said, I can't imagine that the Defendant would go back to USMA. I would expect that having sex while on field training exercise is a serious conduct offense, and could be separated on the basis of that alone.

The latter of which would be a potential motivator to lie about a rape, if one began to become concerned that others might know. For the more emotional arguers in the group, I am not saying she lied to avoid being kicked out for having sex.
 
The army appeals court overturned this verdict without hearing a single witness.

> That's what appellate courts do, military or civilian. They had full access to the record of the case, reviewed the testimony and made a determination that the case against the defendant wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I just read the Appellate Decision, and saw no statement that the conviction was overturned because the alleged victim didn't cry out or fight back as widely reported in the press. They appellate panel merely concluded that there was not sufficient testimony to support the conviction.

The issue is not as clear as XYZ suggests. There are two sides to every case, and the truth often lies somewhere in between. We have long had a legal system premised upon the belief that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to mistakenly imprison an innocent person.

All that being said, I can't imagine that the Defendant would go back to USMA. I would expect that having sex while on field training exercise is a serious conduct offense, and could be separated on the basis of that alone.

The latter of which would be a potential motivator to lie about a rape, if one began to become concerned that others might know. For the more emotional arguers in the group, I am not saying she lied to avoid being kicked out for having sex.
But you can't say she didn't, which is the standard some would impose.
 
This case was the result of pressure from a Board of Visitors that, at the time, was stacked to push a narrow agenda. It was a stretch and should have never been prosecuted.

I'm glad someone else pays attention.
 
Every Academy has been under intense pressure to "do something". Unfortunately, sometimes "do something" causes unintended consequences
 
It's my understanding that Sen. Gillibrand wishes to remove sexual assault trials from the Commanding Officer (Court Marshal? it's present system?) and have these cases tried before a military judge. If that was the case here, maybe the Appellant's decision would not have been necessary; either an innocent man spending 2 years in jail unnecessarily or a better case presented by the prosecution.
 
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.
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?

"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.
 
Personally, I prefer this thread over the old (original) thread. There is more rational debate here, rather than piling on and name-calling. I am not so set in my ways (even in my advanced years) that my opinion can't be swayed by rational debate.

For me, that's the entire reason for debate.

One thing is always true however. Ultimately, it's just an opinion. I expect that everyone has an opinion. Mine sure isn't better than anyone's, it's just mine.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top