The sexual assault conviction of a California-based Marine has been dismissed in part because of the legal confusion caused by the military’s own anti-sexual assault campaign.
The problem stems from the simple but legally inaccurate lesson, conveyed in some military sexual assault prevention classes, that “one drink means you can’t consent.” The lesson, an appeals court ruled Sept. 16, tainted the court martial of an enlisted man at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in Southern California.
“While likely well-intentioned, these statements made during training generated a significant risk of skewing the panel’s understanding of legal consent,” the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals stated, in an opinion written by Navy Cmdr. Aaron Rugh.
The court’s 19-page decision setting aside the sexual assault conviction of Cpl. Joshua D. Newlan is the latest legal fallout from the military’s accelerated campaign against what a number of politicians and high-ranking officials have repeatedly called an “epidemic” of military sexual assault.
Previous legal upheaval has been caused by the perception of unlawful command influence, as top officers including the former Marine Corps commandant have demanded immediate and uncompromising action.
In it latest decision, the three-judge panel of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals left untouched Newlan’s conviction on a charge of adultery. Newland, whose service included a tour in Afghanistan, was found to have had intercourse with an intoxicated female lance corporal he had met that night.
The sexual assault conviction, though, was legally undermined by the trial judge’s failure to adequately offset the inaccurate “one drink means you can’t consent” message.
“A more tightly tailored and prompt statement of the law would have ameliorated any prejudicial impact generated by the legally-erroneous (sexual assault prevention) training,” the court stated.
Michael Doyle: 202-383-6153, @MichaelDoyle10
Comments