Our client was accused of sexual assault of a fellow airman. Their unit had just finished a deployment, and they stopped off in Italy as part of a layover. The events that transpired that evening set the stage for the case.
It was a hard-fought trial. Our client was accused of anal and vaginal sexual assault. He was acquitted of the anal sexual assault but convicted of the vaginal sexual assault.
Attached is his successful appeal of the Courts guilty finding. The Courts reasoning tracks with my closing argument. The best recitation of the case is the opinion overturning the guilty finding for factual insufficiency. The opinion lays out the experts we called and what their conclusions were ultimately leading the appellate court to the conclusion that this outcome was factually insufficient to support the guilty finding for vaginal sexual assault.
Click here to read the opinion.
U.S. Air Force E-6 Article 120 Sexual Assault Case – Case FAQ
1. What were the circumstances that led to the allegation of sexual assault against an E-6 Airman during a unit layover in Italy?
The case began after the unit had completed a deployment and stopped in Italy as part of a layover. Events that unfolded during that evening led to allegations of both anal and vaginal sexual assault, which became the basis of the charges against the Airman.
2. How were the charges of anal sexual assault and vaginal sexual assault addressed in the original trial?
At trial, the Airman faced accusations of both anal and vaginal sexual assault. He was acquitted of the anal sexual assault charge but convicted of vaginal sexual assault, which then became the subject of an appeal.
3. Why did the appellate court overturn the conviction for vaginal sexual assault under Article 120?
The appellate court found the guilty finding for vaginal sexual assault to be factually insufficient. The opinion carefully examined the evidence and determined that the prosecution’s case did not meet the standard required to sustain the conviction.
4. What role did expert testimony play in securing the appeal decision?
During trial, the defense presented multiple expert witnesses whose conclusions challenged the government’s case. The appellate opinion specifically referenced these experts and how their findings aligned with the defense argument, ultimately leading to the conclusion that the conviction could not stand.
5. How did the appellate opinion reflect the defense closing argument presented at trial?
The court’s reasoning closely tracked the points raised in the defense closing argument, particularly concerning the credibility of evidence and the insufficiency of proof. The opinion became the best recitation of the case because it laid out how the defense evidence outweighed the government’s position.
6. What was the final outcome of the Article 120 sexual assault appeal for the E-6 Airman?
The appellate court overturned the conviction for vaginal sexual assault based on factual insufficiency. With the acquittal already in place for anal sexual assault, the appeal resulted in a complete not guilty outcome for the Airman.
Protect Your Military Career
This case shows how an appeal can overturn a wrongful conviction when the facts and expert testimony are presented effectively. The E-6 Airman was ultimately cleared because the appellate court recognized the insufficiency of the government’s case.
Attorney Joseph L. Jordan is a former Army prosecutor who has defended service members worldwide in Article 120 trials, appeals, and other military justice matters. His experience on both sides of the courtroom provides critical insight for service members facing serious charges.
📞 Call 888-256-0348 to discuss how your case may be evaluated.
🌍 Offices based in Fort Hood, Texas – representing Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen worldwide.