Not Guilty Despite OSI “Confession” — U.S. v. Air Force E-4, Minot AFB, North Dakota
Location: Minot AFB, North Dakota
Accused’s Rank: US Air Force E-4
Allegations: Article 120 UCMJ Rape, Article 129 UCMJ Burglary
Maximum Possible Punishment: Life in prison, Dishonorable Discharge, Sex Offender Registration
Case Overview
This court-martial involved some of the most serious charges a service member can face: rape and burglary under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The accused, an Air Force E-4 stationed at Minot AFB, North Dakota, was alleged to have broken into the residence of a woman he had met that same day and raped her while she was unconscious. A conviction would have meant the possibility of life in federal prison, a Dishonorable Discharge, and mandatory registration as a sex offender — consequences that would have permanently destroyed his life, career, and reputation.
The defense team at Gonzalez & Waddington, led by military defense lawyer Michael Waddington, secured a Not Guilty verdict on all charges and specifications. Understanding how that outcome was achieved can help other service members facing similarly serious allegations understand what effective military criminal defense actually looks like.
The Prosecution’s Case Against the Airman
On paper, the government’s case appeared strong. The prosecution built its case around three significant pillars that, taken together, seemed damning.
Witness Testimony About the Alleged Victim’s Condition
The alleged victim and her friends testified that she was severely intoxicated at the time of the alleged assault. Witnesses described her as visibly drunk, actively vomiting, physically unable to walk under her own power, and ultimately unconscious. Under Article 120 of the UCMJ, sexual contact with a person who is incapacitated due to intoxication constitutes rape, regardless of whether physical force was used. This testimony, if believed, would have satisfied the legal standard for incapacitation.
The Alleged “Confession” and Apology
Perhaps the most damaging element of the government’s case was the claim that the client had confessed to the crimes and apologized the following day. In military cases, statements made after an incident — even informal apologies or admissions made in text messages, phone calls, or face-to-face conversations — are frequently used by prosecutors as evidence of guilt. Many service members do not realize that expressing remorse or attempting to smooth over a situation can later be characterized as an acknowledgment of criminal conduct. In this case, the alleged post-incident statements formed a central part of the prosecution’s narrative.
The Burglary Charge
The government also charged the Airman with Article 129 UCMJ Burglary, alleging that he unlawfully entered the alleged victim’s home. This charge compounded the severity of the case and added an additional layer of criminal exposure on top of the rape allegation.
The Defense Strategy
Military defense lawyer Michael Waddington led the defense, and the team was assisted by renowned forensic psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Younggren. Together, they attacked the government’s case from multiple angles, focusing on the reliability of witness accounts, the context and meaning of the alleged statements, and the composition of the jury panel itself.
Challenging the Alleged Confession
One of the most important tasks for any defense attorney in a case like this is to contextualize statements that prosecutors frame as confessions. A statement made after an emotionally charged night — one that expresses regret, concern, or an apology — does not necessarily constitute an admission of criminal guilt. The defense worked to demonstrate what the client actually said, what he meant, and why the government’s characterization of those statements as a “confession” was misleading. Service members and civilians alike sometimes apologize out of empathy or social pressure without having committed any crime. The defense team ensured the jury understood that distinction.
The Role of Forensic Psychology
Dr. Jeffrey Younggren, a forensic psychologist with extensive experience in military and civilian courts, played a critical role in this case. Forensic psychologists can assist the defense in multiple ways, including evaluating the credibility and reliability of witness accounts, assessing memory recall under conditions of intoxication, and helping the jury understand the psychological complexities of human behavior in high-stress or high-alcohol situations. In cases where the prosecution’s case rests heavily on witness memory and perceived admissions, having an expert who can explain the limitations of that evidence is invaluable.
Jury Selection: Identifying and Removing Biased Panel Members
Military jury selection — known as voir dire — is one of the most strategically important phases of any court-martial. In this case, the defense identified serious bias concerns within the jury pool. Several prospective panel members were either sexual assault survivors themselves or had close family members who were. One prospective juror was a sexual assault victim advocate, and another worked in law enforcement.
These backgrounds do not automatically disqualify someone from serving on a military panel, but they raise legitimate questions about whether a person can set aside personal experience and evaluate evidence impartially. The defense team conducted thorough voir dire questioning and successfully challenged and removed biased members, reducing the panel to five impartial members. The case then proceeded before an enlisted panel — a strategic decision that reflects the importance of understanding who is most likely to evaluate the specific facts of a given case fairly.
The Verdict
After hearing all the evidence and arguments, the enlisted panel returned a verdict of Not Guilty on all charges and specifications. The Airman was acquitted of both the Article 120 rape charge and the Article 129 burglary charge. He avoided life in prison, a Dishonorable Discharge, and lifetime sex offender registration.
What This Case Means for Service Members Facing Similar Charges
This case is a reminder that even when the government believes it has a strong case — credible witnesses, a sympathetic alleged victim, and what appears to be a confession — an experienced and aggressive military defense team can expose the weaknesses in that case and secure a just outcome.
A few key lessons from this case are worth highlighting for any service member who finds themselves under investigation or facing court-martial:
- Statements matter enormously. Anything said after an alleged incident — texts, calls, apologies, explanations — can be used against you. Exercise your right to remain silent and consult a military defense attorney before speaking to investigators, including OSI, CID, or NCIS agents.
- Witness testimony is not automatically decisive. Even multiple witnesses describing the same events can be effectively challenged through cross-examination, expert testimony, and a thorough investigation of the facts.
- Jury selection is not a formality. The composition of the panel that hears your case can determine the outcome. Experienced court martial lawyers know how to identify bias and how to advocate for a fair panel.
- Expert witnesses can change outcomes. In complex cases involving alcohol, memory, psychology, or forensic evidence, expert witnesses like Dr. Younggren can explain complicated concepts to panel members in a way that undermines the prosecution’s theory of the case.
About Gonzalez & Waddington
Gonzalez & Waddington is a military criminal defense law firm that represents service members across all branches of the Armed Forces in courts-martial and military investigations worldwide. The firm handles Article 120 sexual assault cases, drug offenses, fraud, murder, and all other UCMJ violations. If you or a service member you know is under investigation or facing court-martial, time is critical. Early retention of a qualified military defense attorney can make a decisive difference in the outcome.
Call 800-921-8607 to Speak With One of Our Court-Martial Defense Lawyers
The attorneys at Gonzalez & Waddington are available to discuss your case. Call 800-921-8607 to speak directly with a military defense lawyer today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a service member really be convicted of rape based solely on a post-incident apology or informal statement?
Yes, prosecutors regularly use statements made after an alleged incident — including apologies, text messages, and phone calls — as evidence of guilt at court-martial. Under military law, there is no requirement that a confession be formally recorded or made to law enforcement for it to be introduced as evidence. This is why it is critically important that service members under investigation say nothing to anyone about the alleged incident without first speaking to a defense attorney. An experienced military defense lawyer can challenge the context, meaning, and voluntariness of such statements before and during trial.
What is an enlisted panel in a court-martial, and does a service member have the right to choose one?
In a general court-martial, an accused service member may request to be tried by a military judge alone or by a panel of military members. If a panel is requested and the accused is enlisted, they have the right under the UCMJ to request that at least one-third of the panel consist of enlisted members. The decision to request an officer panel, an enlisted panel, or a military judge alone is a significant strategic choice that should be made with the guidance of experienced counsel based on the specific facts of the case.
How can a forensic psychologist help in a military sexual assault defense case?
A forensic psychologist can assist the defense in several ways depending on the facts of the case. They may evaluate the reliability of a witness’s memory, particularly when alcohol or stress was involved. They can explain to a panel how human memory works, how intoxication affects recall and perception, and why eyewitness accounts are not always accurate reflections of what actually occurred. In cases where the prosecution’s case depends heavily on the testimony of witnesses or the alleged victim, a credible forensic expert can raise reasonable doubt about the reliability of that testimony.