Rape – Military Sexual Assault – NOT GUILTY

U.S. Army V. E-5, (Rape, Article 120)

Fort Bliss, Texas

Client was charged with Conspiracy to commit rape, conspiracy to commit forcible sodomy, false official statement, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, rape, and forcible sodomy. The basic allegation was that Mr. Jordan’s Client and another NCO was accused of raping and sodomizing an E-3 at about 230 a.m. in the morning in the front seat of the NCO’s (alleged co-conspirator’s) pickup truck.

This case had its challenges. The majority of the key witnesses, to include the alleged victim were deployed overseas. These challenges did not prohibit Mr. Jordan’s team from prevailing at trial. Key facts leading to an acquittal in this case include significant delayed reporting (36 hours) by the alleged victim; sex with her boyfriend at least twice after the alleged incident; no findings were made to the sexual assault examination; and last but not least, Mr. Jordan affectively showed that the alleged victim was a liar.

This case is a testament to why pretrial investigation by defense counsel is vital. Mr. Jordan’s team learned that the alleged victim had slept with the co-conspirator on CQ duty. Due to the current state of rape shield laws, the Mr. Jordan’s defense team was not permitted to introduce this evidence at trial. However, Mr. Jordan’s team was able show that the alleged victim had lied twice before under oath about whether or not she had a romantic and sexual relationship with another key witness to this trial. This key witness was in fact another E-5 who was the first person the alleged victim texted after the alleged rape.

Next Mr. Jordan’s team showed that she wore 6-inch heels on the night in question. She alleged that she squirmed and kicked at the two co-conspirators. However, Mr. Jordan’s team successfully showed that there were no injuries to the co-conspirators, and there were no scratches or holes to the upholstery or dashboard of the pick up truck. Mr. Jordan successfully advocated that these 6-inch heels would have left a mark!

Next Mr. Jordan’s team showed that not only her, but her boyfriend lied under oath. Her boyfriend maintained at trial that they only had sex on the Sunday before she made her outcry and submitted to a sex assault examination. In previous hearings the boyfriend stated that he had sex with the alleged victim about 5 am, a mere 3.5 hours after the alleged incident! The alleged victim always maintained that she had sex with her boyfriend on the Sunday before her outcry. However there was undisputable DNA evidence in this case that Mr. Jordan used to his advantage. The DNA evidence showed that the alleged victim did in fact have sex with her boyfriend a mere 3.5 hours after the alleged rape…and again on Sunday. The alleged victim lied! She also neglected to tell her boyfriend about the allegations until she was on her way to the sex assault examination…after the second time they had sex…over 36 hours after the alleged incident. In sum, she had sex with her boyfriend, not once but twice after she was ALLEGEDLY raped by two men.

Scene investigation is vitally important. Through investigating the scene, Mr. Jordan learned that the alleged victim parked directly under a parking light. Second Mr. Jordan learned that the only route the alleged victim drove to and from the club took her past a Major Hospital Emergency room. Lastly, Mr. Jordan learned that the alleged victim had made it a habit to routinely visit her boyfriend at the club on the weekends, because he was the club’s DJ. All of these things were brought out at trial.

Last, but not least, Mr. Jordan skillfully cross-examined the Special Agent who took a written statement from Mr. Jordan’s client. This was not the usual cross-examination involving the interrogation techniques used by investigators. In fact, Mr. Jordan endorsed the Special Agent’s techniques and experience in order to get at the truth. The Government wanted to get the Client’s statement into evidence in order to prove up false official statement. Mr. Jordan allowed this to happen. The statement contained key details regarding the incident showing that the alleged victim consented to sexual intercourse on the night in question. The Special Agent unwittingly stated that she felt that she figured out what happened that night. By endorsing the truthfulness of this statement, the Special Agent endorsed the Client’s version of events. Mr. Jordan argued accordingly during summation and his client was acquitted of rape and forcible sodomy.

Result:

1. NOT GUILTY of Rape, and Forcible Sodomy
2. Conspiracy to commit rape and forcible sodomy charges were DROPPED
3. Guilty of false official statement and conspiracy to obstruct justice

Sentence: NO CONFINMENT. However, he was given a bad conduct discharge. He has a previous honorable discharge, so he will retain most, if not all of his GI Bill and veterans benefits. The great thing about this case is he is not a convicted sex offender.


Article 120 is the military statute which defines rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, and abusive sexual contact.  These offenses include different types of unlawful, forced sexual activities on another person.  Charges related to sexual misconduct involving a minor fall under Article 120b.

OUR CASE RESULTS

A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS

Scroll to Top