In United States v. Gilpin, the sexual assault conviction is reversed by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA). According to the CCA’s review, the conviction was based primarily on testimonies from the alleged victim, which were deemed “factually insufficient.” The victim claimed they had been unconscious due to heavy intoxication while the accused sexually assaulted them, effectively undermining the validity and reliability of their own statements, argues the CCA.

Furthermore, the sexual encounter between the accused and the alleged victim was apparently well-known throughout the Naval Academy before any criminal accusations were brought to light. Since both Gilpin and KS (the alleged victim) were midshipmen with the Naval Academy, fraternization could result in expulsion or other severe punishments. Other midshipmen at the Academy reportedly gossiped and joked about the fraternization. It was only after a member of the student leadership confronted KS about the encounter did she claim she had been sexually assaulted due to a lack of consent. The inconsistency in her explanation and willingness to bring up the encounter with authority figures underlines its unreliability.

In its explanation of the sexual assault conviction reversal, the CCA clearly detailed that there was no other evidence to use beyond the statements from both parties. On one hand, Gilpin insisted the sexual encounter was consensual. On the other, KS claimed it was not. Additionally KS insisted her memory of the event was cloudy due to heavy intoxication. With all elements in mind, there was found to be ample room for “reasonable doubt” that any criminal misconduct occurred and, thus, the conviction was unjustified.


The lesson of Gilpin’s conviction reversal is one that has been repeated throughout the history of military criminal cases and court-martial, but it is one with importance that cannot be overlooked. In order to secure a conviction, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt must be presented. When there is even a shadow of a doubt it is unacceptable to convict and condemn a service member.

The case is also noteworthy in that it highlights the very real trouble of accepting testimony from alleged victims who admit to intoxication or impairment at the time of the alleged incident. Many sex crime cases involve a victim who claims to be unable to consent to a sexual act due to intoxication. This ruling from the Navy-Marine Corps CCA asks the question, “If an alleged victim claims to be unable to consent due to a lack of mental awareness, then how can they be able to confidently testify?”

Military Criminal Defense Attorney Joseph Jordan is a nationally recognized legal defender of the brave men and women who serve in the United States Armed Forces. Throughout his many years of experience – including time spent as an Army JAG Corps Officer – he has been directly involved in military crime cases and court-martial in bases across the globe and for offenses that run the entire spectrum. If you have been accused of a serious criminal offense and do not know who can help defend your rights, name, and military career, turn to Attorney Joseph Jordan right away.

Call (866) 971-4355 or contact his firm online to begin your case with confidence.