Sexual Assault – Military Sexual Assault – Case Dismissed 4

U.S. Army v. E6 (Sexual Assault, Abusive Sexual Contact)

Fort Bliss, Texas

Client was charged with Article 120, sexual assault. He was specifically charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a fellow Soldier within his unit while on a pre-deployment train up at Fort Bliss. Client is a Reservist who was mobilized along with his unit to deploy to the Middle East. The unit was given a holiday pass during the 4th of July weekend. Many of the Soldiers opted to stay in the Fort Bliss, El Paso area for the holiday, including our Client. The complaining witness in this case was married. On the evening in question she had sex at least twice with another Soldier who will be referred to as SPC S. C. After the second sexual encounter, our client stopped by the room looking for some items he had lost. SPC S. C. reportedly had to leave to deal with an issue back on Fort Bliss. Our client apparently stayed in the room for some time and then left.

The complaining witness in this case wrote out several statements alleging that our client sexually assaulted her for over 30 minutes. She reports that our client’s penis was inside of her vagina for over 30 minutes. She reports texting SPC S.C. that she needed help. SPC S.C. shows up at the hotel shortly after she texted him. SPC S.C. took the complaining witness directly to the hospital. A sexual assault examination was conducted shortly after her arrival at the hospital. DNA was collected from the complaining witness during this examination. At a later date, a sexual assault examination was conducted on our client and DNA was also collected during this examination.

The DNA taken from both the complaining witness and our client tells a very important story. First it is important to note that the DNA was collected from all over the complaining witnesses body to include inside her vagina and outside her vagina. The collection takes place within a few hours of the alleged sexual assault she claims took place for over 30 minutes. The complaining witness was taken to the hospital within minutes after she claims she was sexually assaulted. The DNA quite simply tells a different story. The DNA analysis specifically EXCLUDES our client’s DNA profile from being inside her vagina. Our client’s non-semen DNA profile was only noted on her pubic mound. The DNA analysis also shows that there is an unknown contributor to semen DNA inside the complaining witness’s vagina.

The statements gathered in this case show that the alleged victim and SPC S.C. had sexual relations with each other prior to the alleged sexual assault. The statements in this case also show that shortly after the alleged victim and SPC S.C. had sex with each other our client had stopped by the hotel room looking for some items. What is of particular importance here is that the alleged victim was a married woman at the time she was having sexual intercourse with SPC S.C..

As the evidence in this case developed, the we learned that the alleged victim had been an exotic dancer in her civilian life. Additionally, the defense learned from specific witnesses that the alleged victim had given lap dances to members of her unit.

The DNA did not support the story of sexual assault as told by the complaining witness in this case. However, the DNA does support a story where the alleged victim participated and willingly gave a lap dance to our client in this case. It is the only logical explanation of how our clients non-semen DNA ended up on her pubic mound and not inside her vagina. It is the only logical explanation for how our client’s DNA was specifically excluded from being inside the complaining witness’s vagina. As for her motivations to claim sexual assault, the only logical and plausible explanation is the plan and clear fact that our client basically caught the alleged victim engaging in an inappropriate relationship with another member of the unit.

The alleged victim in this case opted to withdraw from the participating in the case all together merely a week out from the docketed trial date. This forced the Military Prosecutors to withdraw the charges against our Client. Instead, they opted to give our Client a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR). First, we filed a personal statement with appropriate attachments and over 30 character letters in support of our client. We also filed another 15 character for untruthfulness affidavits on the alleged victim. These affidavits both for the defense and against the alleged victim were all gathered by our legal team from members of the Client’s unit. Lastly, we filed a legal review including much of the evidence mentioned above. In sum, the GOMOR was filed locally and our client was exonerated.

Result: Case Dismissed 1 week before trial. GOMOR filed locally. This 20 yr NCO was able to move on with his Army Reserve Career.

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.



Scroll to Top