Former USMA Cadet's rape conviction overturned

Executive Summary:

USMA Cadet gets convicted of rape, sentenced to 21 years in prison, thrown out of West Point, discharged from The Army.
Two years into his prison term, verdict gets overturned. Sex may have actually been consensual.
Cadet can now choose to go back and finish his 4 years - without any of his classmates - who just commissioned.

What an awful story.
 
Dear Potential Drunk And/Or Horny 20 Year Olds (ie most people),
Like most things in life, if it looks too good to be true it probably is. Investment opportunities, awesome job offers, proposals from Nigerian princes, and no-strings sex are not always as stringless as promised. Have some fun, take some risks, even be willfully stupid on occasion, but know that the downside can be far worse than your invincible adolescent brain is willing to believe. We can all laugh at the dumb-a** that loses his money in a hair-brained scheme (hare brained? that seems to work too...) but believe the middle-aged folk when they warn about how drunk driving or drunk fighting or drunk sex can end so, so badly. And I'm not necessarily talking about the stitches or pregnancies either.

These stories just depress me. I'm not going to comment on the particulars of this case, but it illustrates my whole point pretty clearly: things get murky really fast when booze is involved and memories are impaired. Once you get pulled into the legal system on this sort of case you can never know what's going to happen, so you leave yourself open to a lot of things you can't control at all. I made it through to my fifties without a ton of trouble, but I'm not sure I'd have been so lucky these days. There are safe(r) ways to be drunk and stupid, and mostly they revolve about taking care of yourself and your friends when you run around.
 
I preach and preach and preach, to have one buddy not only a designated driver, but also a sober buddy. Take turns. Watch out for your crew. I pray those that hear my words actually listen.

Just waaaay too much to risk, loose, for a night that will never, ever be worth it in hindsight.
 
When my son was in MOS school he and a few classmates went to the beach for the weekend. DS was the first back to the room and asleep when the rest started straggling in. One brought a girl. To shorten the story a bit, she was underage and the daughter of a prominent local. She faced major trouble from dad for being late and with a "boy" so she alleged what amounted to kidnapping and sexual assault.

They all were under the threat of serious charges the rest of the way through school and my son was afraid his career was over before it started. It was all resolved on his part but he still got a non-punitive letter of caution which was not entered in his record. The school director of academics was pushing for them all to be charged and punished. A few years later guess who shows up to assume command of his battalion? If you guessed the former director you would be correct. It worked out OK though as nothing was ever said of the incident. Scary times.
 
StPaulDad said:
Dear Potential Drunk And/Or Horny 20 Year Olds (ie most people),
Like most things in life, if it looks too good to be true it probably is. Investment opportunities, awesome job offers, proposals from Nigerian princes, and no-strings sex are not always as stringless as promised. Have some fun, take some risks, even be willfully stupid on occasion, but know that the downside can be far worse than your invincible adolescent brain is willing to believe. We can all laugh at the dumb-a** that loses his money in a hair-brained scheme (hare brained? that seems to work too...) but believe the middle-aged folk when they warn about how drunk driving or drunk fighting or drunk sex can end so, so badly. And I'm not necessarily talking about the stitches or pregnancies either.

These stories just depress me. I'm not going to comment on the particulars of this case, but it illustrates my whole point pretty clearly: things get murky really fast when booze is involved and memories are impaired. Once you get pulled into the legal system on this sort of case you can never know what's going to happen, so you leave yourself open to a lot of things you can't control at all. I made it through to my fifties without a ton of trouble, but I'm not sure I'd have been so lucky these days. There are safe(r) ways to be drunk and stupid, and mostly they revolve about taking care of yourself and your friends when you run around.
Click to expand...

Great advice but this incident had nothing to do with alcohol. Female cadet was raped while sleeping on ground next to assailant during field training. Just when it appeared progress was being made...
 
Sledge, that's a bunch of garbage. You should be ashamed of yourself and if you have a daughter in these situations, you will learn that apparently physical evidence and live testimony is trumped by three dudes reviewing the information and listening to the jailed defendant. Sad, sad, sad.....

“We have carefully reviewed the evidence and, taking into consideration that the panel saw and heard the witnesses and we did not, we nevertheless conclude that appellant’s convictions are factually insufficient,” according to a written decision by three military judges.

or, how about this jem: "In our view, the circumstantial evidence in support of this defense theory severely undercuts the government’s case.”
 
According the the Appeals Court: "the woman did not audibly struggle and accused took no steps to keep her quiet, hide his identity or remove evidence of the alleged assault"

Evidence presented at original trial supported that sex was consensual (in graphic detail) and that the accuser actively participated. Conviction was based on prosecution's claim of "rape freeze" - that a state of shock made accuser unable to verbally or physically object.

Interesting timing though. Acquitted less than two weeks after his class graduated.
 
This is a terrible story all around that really should never have happened. Sexual relations between Cadets are not allowed, especially in barracks or berthing areas, and these "kids" either didn't think, or there was non-consensual sex. Remember everyone, the Military Rules of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure are totally different from the regular civilian legal system. That along with the "pressure" from politicians to prosecute even questionable cases because of past history or appearance of wrong sometimes makes these cases as real mess. I tell my sons, understand the UCMJ, don't drink or do drugs, and if you can't be discreet with a relationship on base or around other military or civilian personnel who may be around, then don't engage in ANYTHING questionable. I would like to read the Courts Martial transcript and get an idea of who said what, what was confirmed, and what was surmised. As jl123 says....conviction based on "rape freeze" should require the totality of the evidence and circumstances to lead an impartial person to be able to reason it happened as claimed beyond a reasonable doubt.

I have seen a lot of service members who were administratively separated, judicially separated, or not allowed to remain in the service and who received less than Honorable Discharges for sometimes questionable actions which a lot of time had no real evidence, just circumstantial conjectural but because of the "public perception of the military allowing sexual assaults to occur almost at random and the victim being vilified" trials or administrative hearings are held and possibly innocent people are punished to make it appear as if the military is taking stronger action against sexual assaults. I am NOT saying these events do not occur, but I think the pendulum has swung to the opposite side of the scale due to the past inaction about allegations of assault, and you may now face the "guilty until proven innocent" syndrome based upon the word of one person, who may be looking to hold a grudge or keep themselves out of trouble.

Bottom line for Cadets, Mids, or Service Members...…...THINK before you act, what MAY be the repercussions of doing this and is it the right thing to do, BEFORE doing it! Use your head, doing something questionable could cost you your career and possibly your future.
 
Kind of piggy backing on Impulsive here. A factual insufficiency finding indicates that the Appellate panel found that the evidence presented at the time of trial did not meet the burden that each element of the charged offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the question they addressed was was there evidence to support each element of the prosecutors charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate finding should not be viewed as a set back for women's rights, or that the appellate court erred because the trial court found one way that has been overturned as jebdad argues. The ruling should be viewed as a victory, for women and men. For the future victims and accused. In this instance (while i did not read the opinion) it appears that the panel found that the element of lack of consent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling holds the prosecution to the high standard of proving their case. If anyone is upset at this finding, your anger should be directed at the prosecution, who failed to present evidence to overcome his high burden of beyond a reasonable doubt; not at the panel who is upholding those standards. This ruling should be seen as a victory for future victims if it compels the prosecution to perform a better investigation, put on better evidence, try a better case, and, weeds out complaints that are suspect. This would result in credible victims being believed more often. Prosecutors seldom lose because they only bring cases where they have the compelling evidence to win. In those instances where they lack the compelling evidence, prosecutors need to dig deeper into the case, and actually work to prove it. Prosecutors are, at times, complacent because of the fact that charges are seldom brought in cases where there is not compelling evidence, or, where there is compelling evidence as to the defense or in contradiction to an element of the crime. Holding the prosecution accountable, as in this case, should result in stronger prosecutions in the future. Is there a burden on the victim--yes, and there should be so that we are ensured that the victim's allegations are credible, but that burden is supposed to be borne by the prosecutor, who hopefully will bring a better case. Is this better for the accused, yes, because it stands for the proposition that all accused are entitled to their day in court, and that their guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe it will prevent trial courts from being swayed by public sentiment, if that had any bearing on this matter.

The appellate panel is the internal check and balance of the judicial system. We should celebrate the fact that the checks and balances are in place, and, this is one of those instances. This is not about that they ruled on this case as they did. This is about the checks and balances of the system working.

I would hope the cadet returned to WP, although it would be difficult for him to do so.
 
My question to this situation is should he return to West Point, could he in turn be found guilty of a conduct violation and dismissed on those grounds?
Just curious.
 
golfindad said:
Kind of piggy backing on Impulsive here. A factual insufficiency finding indicates that the Appellate panel found that the evidence presented at the time of trial did not meet the burden that each element of the charged offenses were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the question they addressed was was there evidence to support each element of the prosecutors charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate finding should not be viewed as a set back for women's rights, or that the appellate court erred because the trial court found one way that has been overturned as jebdad argues. The ruling should be viewed as a victory, for women and men. For the future victims and accused. In this instance (while i did not read the opinion) it appears that the panel found that the element of lack of consent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling holds the prosecution to the high standard of proving their case. If anyone is upset at this finding, your anger should be directed at the prosecution, who failed to present evidence to overcome his high burden of beyond a reasonable doubt; not at the panel who is upholding those standards. This ruling should be seen as a victory for future victims if it compels the prosecution to perform a better investigation, put on better evidence, try a better case, and, weeds out complaints that are suspect. This would result in credible victims being believed more often. Prosecutors seldom lose because they only bring cases where they have the compelling evidence to win. In those instances where they lack the compelling evidence, prosecutors need to dig deeper into the case, and actually work to prove it. Prosecutors are, at times, complacent because of the fact that charges are seldom brought in cases where there is not compelling evidence, or, where there is compelling evidence as to the defense or in contradiction to an element of the crime. Holding the prosecution accountable, as in this case, should result in stronger prosecutions in the future. Is there a burden on the victim--yes, and there should be so that we are ensured that the victim's allegations are credible, but that burden is supposed to be borne by the prosecutor, who hopefully will bring a better case. Is this better for the accused, yes, because it stands for the proposition that all accused are entitled to their day in court, and that their guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe it will prevent trial courts from being swayed by public sentiment, if that had any bearing on this matter.

The appellate panel is the internal check and balance of the judicial system. We should celebrate the fact that the checks and balances are in place, and, this is one of those instances. This is not about that they ruled on this case as they did. This is about the checks and balances of the system working.

I would hope the cadet returned to WP, although it would be difficult for him to do so.
Click to expand...


I wish I could embrace your robust endorsement of the process. As someone with no legal expertise and just a common guy, I find it hard to feel good about it. The victim finds out about the appeal and the decision through social media. What kind of detailed process is this?

The cadet returning to WP can't be any more difficult than the victim shaming face to face and behind her back that took place the last two years.
 
golfindad,
Thank you for putting this in legal terms that best explain the process that took place. From reading about this it seems to me that while the Appellate Panel found that the prosecution did not present a case without reasonable doubt, they did not make a determination on whether the accused was actually innocent of all charges.
 
jcleppe Unfortunately, the fallacy that today's society has is that a criminal trial is guilt or innocence. It is not. The only job a prosecutor has is to prove guilt. A defense attorney's job is not to prove innocence, it is to prove that at least one element of a crime has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The system is not perfect but, was set up on the theory that it is better to allow a guilty man go free than to incarcerate an innocent man. Franklin said it, but it was copied from others long before the US was found.

jebdad, I feel your pain, and hope that this case hasn't opened old (or recent)wounds. You are correct that the victim was not respected by not being in the loop to hear the ruling. It is sad to see this happen consistently it seems. But, as you strenuously provide a voice for the victim (which I am in no way criticizing) know that the same strenuous arguments exist as to the accused difficulties as a result of this incident. not trying to bang tires, so if i have, please reconsider how you have interpreted what i have said.
 
Sledge said:
My civics class was so long ago I must have forgotten that the accused had to prove themselves innocent of all charges.
Click to expand...

I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say, which was not difficult because I didn't say it very well. What I meant was described much better by golfindad's post, i apologize for making it sound otherwise.

golfindad said:
Unfortunately, the fallacy that today's society has is that a criminal trial is guilt or innocence. It is not. The only job a prosecutor has is to prove guilt. A defense attorney's job is not to prove innocence, it is to prove that at least one element of a crime has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The system is not perfect but, was set up on the theory that it is better to allow a guilty man go free than to incarcerate an innocent man. Franklin said it, but it was copied from others long before the US was found.
Click to expand...
 
jebdad said:
I wish I could embrace your robust endorsement of the process. As someone with no legal expertise and just a common guy, I find it hard to feel good about it. The victim finds out about the appeal and the decision through social media. What kind of detailed process is this? The cadet returning to WP can't be any more difficult than the victim shaming face to face and behind her back that took place the last two years.
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on it - but since the conviction was overturned - I believe that we are talking about an alleged victim here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top