CAAF sets aside rape conviction as legally insufficient

We previously noted that while most legal sufficiency claims fail at CAAF, a non-trivial percentage of such claims actually succeed. CAAF's unanimous opinion in United States v. Bright, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0269/AR (C.A.A.F. June 9, 2008), provides more support for that proposition.

Judge Erdmann wrote for the court, holding that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict Sergeant First Class Bright of raping a trainee. In a highly fact-intensive ruling, CAAF essentially held that threatening to take away a trainee's weekend pass and other abuses of First Sergeant Bright's position of authority over her weren't sufficient to satisfy the "by force and without consent" prong of the old Article 120.

CAAF emphasized that First Sergeant Bright's conduct was nevertheless criminal: "We do not question that Bright's conduct -- an egregious abuse of his position for which he was charged and convicted of maltreatment -- was criminal. However, we cannot conclude that a reasonable factfinder could find that the particular circumstances involved in this case show that 'resistance [was] overcome by threats of death or great bodily harm' necessary to sustain a conviction for rape." Id., slip. at 19 (alteration in original).

Based on the ACCA docket number, it appears that First Sergeant Bright has already served his entire five years of confinement. In fact, it appears that the case was docketed with ACCA in 2002 and that ACCA summarily affirmed in December 2006. Had the military justice appellate review system consisted of a single-tier of CAAF review, perhaps First Sergeant Bright's conviction would have been overturned before he had served his entire term of confinement.