This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before 

TANG, LAWRENCE, and STEPHENS, 

Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

UNITED STATES

Appellee

v.

Mason W. GILPIN

Midshipman, U.S. Navy

Appellant

No. 201900033

Decided: 30 December 2019.

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary, 

Military Judges: Commander William H. Weiland, JAGC, USN

(arraignment); Commander Arthur C. Gaston, JAGC, USN (motions

and trial). Sentence adjudged 31 August 2018 by a general courtmartial convened at Region Legal Service Office Naval District 

Washington consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence

approved by the convening authority: confinement for 30 months, and 

a dismissal.

For Appellant: Carol Thompson, Esq., Eric S. Montalvo, Esq., Captain 

Nick S. Mote, USMC.

For Appellee: Captain Brian L. Farrell, USMC; Lieutenant Kurt W. 

Siegal, JAGC, USN.

_________________________

This opinion does not serve as binding precedent, but 

may be cited as persuasive authority under NMCCA

Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

2

_________________________

STEPHENS, Judge:

A general court-martial convicted Appellant, U.S. Naval Academy Midshipman (MIDN) Mason W. Gilpin, contrary to his pleas, of violating Article

120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).1 The charge arose when Appellant and another midshipman, KS, had an alcohol-fueled sexual encounter

in the early hours of a Sunday morning in her room at Bancroft Hall.2 MIDN 

KS did not remember any of the encounter other than being on top of MIDN 

Gilpin. A couple of weeks later, she alleged he had sexually assaulted her.

After a bench trial, the military judge acquitted MIDN Gilpin of sexually 

assaulting MIDN KS when she was incapable of consenting due to her intoxication (Specification 1), but found him guilty of sexually assaulting her when 

she was “asleep” and “otherwise unaware” (Specification 2).

Appellant asserts four assignments of error (AOE): (1) the military judge 

misapplied United States v. Sager3 by convicting MIDN Gilpin on theories of

MIDN KS being asleep and otherwise unaware, (2) the evidence is legally and 

factually insufficient, (3) the Government lost jurisdiction to try MIDN Gilpin 

when it separated him from the Naval Academy, and (4) the trial counsel 

committed prosecutorial misconduct. 

We find the jurisdictional AOE to be without merit, but find the evidence 

to be factually insufficient, rendering the remaining two AOEs moot. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Midshipman KS Texts Midshipman Gilpin That He Had Sexually 

Assaulted Her

On 13 December 2016, MIDN Gilpin was with a friend in his room at 

Bancroft Hall when MIDN KS texted him. About three weeks before, he had, 

in his words, “hooked up” with her in her room in Bancroft Hall. People were 

 

1 10 U.S.C. § 920 (2016).

2 Bancroft Hall serves as the on-base residence facility for all midshipmen attending the Naval Academy.

3 76 M.J. 158, 162 (C.A.A.F. 2017) (analyzing Article 120(d), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. 

§ 920(d) (2012), and holding that “asleep,” “unconscious,” and “otherwise unaware”

constitute three separate theories of liability and that “otherwise unaware” means 

“unaware in a manner different from asleep and different from unconsciousness”).
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

3

talking about it, and it was a serious offense that could get both of them 

kicked out of the Academy. The day before he received MIDN KS’s text, her

doctor told her she had chlamydia. The text she sent read:

Good evening Mason, I’m sending this to you as a courtesy. I 

wanted to let you know that what happened was wrong. I want 

to let you know that we are not ok. I’m going to give you the 

heads up now to let you know that you gave me chlamydia. 

Therefore, you should get that checked out. Lastly, I want to 

give you a heads up before this comes as a surprise that I will 

be filing an unrestricted report. From now on I believe it would 

be best and I would appreciate if you did not text or communicate with me in person.4

But MIDN KS must have gotten chlamydia from someone else, because 

MIDN Gilpin did not have it. MIDN Gilpin’s friend described him as 

“shocked” and “confused.”5 He texted her back. He told her he did not have 

chlamydia, that he did not know what he did wrong, and wondered if this was 

even MIDN KS texting him. She ordered him to stop texting her. His last 

message to her was:

[KS] we have to talk about this in person, you can’t just do this. 

What are you blaming me for doing? I don’t understand, it was 

consensual. We joked about doing it again the next morning, 

you literally said you liked it on top the next day. I did my best 

to handle it the next day with the plan B.6

B. The Evening of Saturday, 19 November 2016

1. Midshipman KS attends a party

MIDN KS was a second-year student at the Naval Academy. One of her 

midshipman friends had a small twenty-first birthday party at her sponsor’s 

home in Annapolis.7 A total of six midshipmen were there, and the sponsorparents took them out to a restaurant. Among the midshipmen, there was 

moderate drinking that night.

 

4 Defense Exhibit J at 5.

5 Record at 1505.

6 Defense Exhibit J at 8.

7 Families living around the Naval Academy may “sponsor” midshipmen to allow 

them a “home away from home” during authorized liberty periods.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

4

MIDN KS arrived at the party between five and six o’clock in the evening. 

Having recently turned 21, she had a glass of wine and some beer and then 

another glass of wine with dinner. After coming back to the sponsor’s house, 

she had a few drinks while she was in the hot tub—including one where she 

had several ounces of rum in a glass and “took it back like a shot.”8 About an 

hour before midnight, MIDN KS vomited in the bathroom. 

During the evening, MIDN KS was upset about the end of a long-distance 

relationship with a young man in her hometown. She was very emotional 

during the evening and was texting back and forth with the ex-boyfriend. It 

was disputed whether she was also communicating with MIDN Gilpin that 

evening using a multimedia messaging application that allows users to exchange messages, photos, and videos. MIDN KS left the party sometime 

before midnight because she was required to be back on board the Academy 

for “Taps”; her privileges were restricted because she had low grades and had 

failed her physical readiness test. Just five days earlier, one of her roommates wrote in her journal that MIDN KS told her “nothing in her life is 

going well.”9

Another midshipman at the party, MIDN Collins, drove MIDN KS home. 

Because MIDN Collins was a second-year student, she was not allowed to 

operate a vehicle on Academy grounds, so she planned to park at nearby 

St. John’s College and walk the approximately half-mile to the Academy and 

Bancroft Hall. MIDN KS realized she left her wallet and military identification card at the party. With no time to turn around, MIDN Collins parked at 

St. John’s and called “Shipmate,” an Academy van service run by midshipmen that gives classmates a no-questions-asked safe ride back to the Naval 

Academy. This would allow MIDN KS to get back to Bancroft Hall on time, as 

she would not need her military identification to enter the Academy if she 

was on the Shipmate van.

Two midshipmen, a driver and a navigator, were operating the Shipmate 

van that night. The van crew had some difficulty locating the pair, but eventually picked them up and dropped them off outside Bancroft Hall. The driver, by the time of trial a Marine Second Lieutenant, testified she recalled 

MIDN KS being helped by MIDN Collins as they walked towards Bancroft 

Hall. The driver, who did not know either of the midshipmen, only remembered them as blonde-haired (MIDN Collins) and brown-haired (MIDN KS). 

 

8 Record at 1070.

9 Id. at 1255. 
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

5

Leading up to the trial, the driver reached out to MIDN Collins, believing 

she was the one “pressing charges.”10 She offered to help because she was 

certain she remembered a drunk blonde-haired midshipman being assisted 

by a brown-haired midshipman. Prior to trial, she learned it was MIDN KS, 

who has brown hair, who was allegedly too drunk to consent to sex, and not 

the blonde-haired MIDN Collins. She testified at trial adamantly—to the 

point of becoming “combative”11—that she now remembered the very drunk 

brown-haired midshipman was being assisted by the blonde midshipman. 

The navigator, still a midshipman at trial, recalled that both midshipmen

seemed intoxicated, with MIDN KS more so than MIDN Collins. On crossexamination, however, he admitted that while he was sure MIDN KS was 

drunk, he only assumed, based on her behavior, that MIDN Collins was also 

intoxicated. This was the navigator’s first and only duty night for Shipmate.

He recalled documenting the call in the logbook and having to make several 

calls back and forth to locate the riders for their pickup. Another thing that 

stood out to him was that MIDN KS was in her “spirit gear” (Naval Academy 

athletic gear) instead of her required Service Dress Blue uniform, though the 

Government disputed this. The navigator could not recall whether they 

walked into Bancroft Hall assisting one another or not, testifying that he 

would probably only have remembered if one of them was so drunk as to fall

out of the van and need help. 

2. Midshipman KS returns to her room at Bancroft Hall

MIDN Collins described MIDN KS as very intoxicated, so much so that 

she was “stumbling”12 and she had to support some of MIDN KS’s weight as 

they walked up the stairs, rather than take the elevator, so she could sign in 

for Taps. After MIDN KS signed her own name in front of the Company Duty 

Officer without incident, MIDN Collins testified she helped MIDN KS to her 

room and helped her change out of her clothes. She accompanied her to the 

hallway bathroom and then walked back with her to her room. She assisted 

MIDN KS into her bed, which sat almost six feet off the ground. With MIDN 

KS in her bed, she plugged her cell phone in near her and staged a trashcan 

on her desk in case she vomited again. She closed the door, but did not lock it, 

not knowing if her two roommates would be coming to the room that night—

 

10 Id. at 677. 

11 Id. at 715.

12 Id. at 634.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

6

neither did. According to MIDN Collins, MIDN KS did not make any phone 

calls when she was with her and she was not in any condition to do so.

Yet, phone records showed MIDN KS made three calls right after MIDN 

Collins left. She attempted to call her ex-boyfriend at exactly midnight. Then 

she called another midshipman at 12:15 a.m. and spoke to him for 20 

minutes. He testified that she “[led] most of the conversation” and she was 

“upset about a boy.”13 He could tell she had been drinking—she told him so 

and she slurred some of her words—but she was coherent and making sense 

during the call. Immediately after that, MIDN KS called and spoke with her 

ex-boyfriend for 12 minutes. She was very upset and crying, and he knew she 

had been drinking. But she was coherent, and he could understand her and it 

was apparent through their conversation that she understood him.

At some point, most likely right after the phone calls, it is possible another midshipman, Ian Heinz, visited MIDN KS’s room. MIDN Heinz, who was 

restricted to the Academy that night, received a text from MIDN KS on her 

way back from the party, asking for help signing in for Taps. When MIDN 

Heinz later called MIDN KS to help, MIDN Collins answered MIDN KS’s 

phone and told MIDN Heinz she would help MIDN KS. MIDN Heinz testified

he went to MIDN KS’s room that night “around 12:30, 12:40.”14 He announced his name, knocked on the door, and entered the dark room. She was 

in her bed with her phone. He stood on a chair to speak to her. He described 

her as upset about her boyfriend, but coherent, even stopping to check a text 

or other message application during their conversation. This visit ended with 

MIDN KS leaning over her bed to give him a hug and he left the room.15

For her part, MIDN KS had no memories of the evening from the time she 

was drinking in the hot tub until the next morning, except for one thing—she 

remembers a dream-like snapshot where she saw MIDN Gilpin’s face as she 

was on top of him in her bed.

 

13 Id. at 1450. 

14 Id. at 1480. 

15 While the Government strongly disputed this visit ever occurred, MIDN 

Heinz’s testimony that MIDN KS was not so intoxicated that she could not legally 

consent to sexual activity was corroborated by other witnesses. In any event, the 

military judge acquitted MIDN Gilpin of Specification 1 alleging MIDN KS was 

incapacitated from alcohol.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

7

3. Midshipman Gilpin returns to Bancroft Hall

Midshipman Gilpin was also a second-year student. He and MIDN KS

had been assigned to the same company, and often the same 12-person 

squad, since the start of “Plebe Summer” that preceded their first academic 

year. They had socialized outside of school in a group setting amicably on 

multiple occasions—proven by photographs—although MIDN KS downplayed 

the extent of their friendship. They were each contacts on the other’s multimedia messaging application and had used the application to communicate 

one-on-one. That evening, MIDN Gilpin went out in Annapolis to have dinner 

with his roommate and his family and then celebrated the roommate’s twenty-first birthday with some other friends at bars. He returned to Bancroft 

Hall sometime before three o’clock in the morning. He was very intoxicated,

so much so that another midshipman at the duty desk accompanied him back 

to his room.

The next day MIDN Gilpin told another midshipman (who was friends 

with both MIDN Gilpin and MIDN KS) what he remembered after returning 

to Bancroft Hall. MIDN Gilpin said he knew MIDN KS had returned to Bancroft because they were messaging one another on a multimedia messaging 

application.16 He said their conversation prompted him to go to her room 

around three o’clock in the morning, knock on her door, and enter. He sat at 

her desk as the two talked. Then, at some point, he got up into her bed. They

started kissing and had sex. MIDN Gilpin said he abruptly returned to his 

room for a condom but never went back to MIDN KS’s room. MIDN Gilpin 

said he could not remember ejaculating. The friend testified that it “was a 

spoken understanding [between him and MIDN Gilpin] that it was a drunken 

hookup.”17

After MIDN KS made her unrestricted sexual assault report in December 

2016, investigators interviewed her. At trial, she testified that she told investigators that when she and MIDN Gilpin spoke in her room the next morning, 

he said “[t]hat somebody told him [she] was down there, and he was drunk 

and bored, and he came to tease me, and things just escalated.”18 The Government however, despite presenting the testimony of the friend who recounted MIDN Gilpin’s story of what happened, believed MIDN Gilpin was 

 

16 The Government never presented any forensic evidence from either MIDN KS’s 

or MIDN Gilpin’s phone to confirm or deny any multimedia messaging communications between the two that night.

17 Record at 1076.

18 Id. at 747. 
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

8

not communicating with MIDN KS on a messaging application that evening 

and only learned she was in her room and drunk from MIDN Heinz. 

MIDN Heinz, a defense witness, testified he saw MIDN Gilpin in the 

wardroom that night around “3:30, 0300, sometime around then,” at which 

point he told MIDN Gilpin to go to his own room.19 During cross-examination, 

MIDN Heinz denied he told MIDN Gilpin that MIDN KS was drunk in her 

room and that he should go “tease” her. The Government later rebutted this 

through the testimony of MIDN KS’s friend, the midshipman whose twentyfirst birthday party MIDN KS attended that evening. She testified that the 

next day in a liberty formation, she was talking to MIDN Heinz and MIDN 

Gilpin. She testified MIDN Heinz told her that he sent MIDN Gilpin to “mess 

with [MIDN KS] since they were both drinking.”20

C. Aftermath

1. The next morning

The next morning, MIDN Gilpin received two text messages from MIDN 

KS. The first came at 9:47 a.m.—“Mason”—and went unanswered. About two 

hours later, she wrote, “Wake your ass up I need to talk to you.” When he 

went to her room, the conversation centered on “what happened” the night 

before. Both midshipmen were concerned MIDN KS could have gotten pregnant, so MIDN Gilpin offered to purchase Plan B emergency contraception for 

her.

MIDN KS also called a midshipman friend at 11:36 a.m., shortly after 

sending MIDN Gilpin the second text message. According to her friend, 

MIDN KS was “crying” and “hysterical” and said she woke up in her bed with 

her pants off and hickeys on her neck. MIDN KS told her she remembered 

hearing or seeing MIDN Gilpin, but made no mention of the sole detail she 

remembered, and which she would later tell NCIS agents—that she remembered being on top of him. This particular friend had previously filed an 

unrestricted sexual assault report against another midshipman in her company, a fact of which MIDN KS was aware. As a result, the accused mid-

 

19 Id. at 1533. 

20 Id. at 1662. The Government was adamant MIDN Heinz lied about both visiting KS’s room and his denial that he sent MIDN Gilpin to her room that night. He 

was separated from the Naval Academy for lying about an alcohol incident. His 

testimony, whatever its probative value, does not impact our analysis about the 

plausibility of MIDN KS being asleep when penetrated and then otherwise unaware 

when she was on top of MIDN Gilpin during intercourse.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

9

shipman was immediately removed from her company and the chain of command did not pursue any allegations of possible fraternization against her.

She testified that she eventually discussed that process with MIDN KS.

MIDN Gilpin had to enlist the help of his older brother, also a midshipman, to get the Plan B. When he later met with MIDN KS, he told her he had 

to explain what happened to his brother to get his help.

2. Naval Academy gossip

Over the next several weeks, which included the Thanksgiving holiday, 

others in the company learned of the incident. Both MIDN KS and MIDN 

Gilpin told others what happened, but at this point, MIDN KS did not frame 

the experience as a sexual assault and no one perceived that she was reporting a sexual assault. MIDN KS eventually told her friends she wanted MIDN 

Gilpin moved out of the company.

One incident, which was hotly contested, was what may have been said 

when MIDN KS was in the company wardroom studying on 22 November, the 

Tuesday after the incident. MIDNs Gilpin and Heinz were also there. MIDN 

Gilpin left for the head. In his absence, MIDN Heinz and MIDN KS spoke 

about her encounter with MIDN Gilpin. According to MIDN Heinz, MIDN KS

told him she “would do it again” and that “she liked being on top.”21 When 

MIDN KS testified, she agreed they were all in the wardroom together and 

that MIDN Heinz was “teasing” her about MIDN Gilpin. But she was adamant she never told him she slept with MIDN Gilpin or described any of the 

sexual positions, saying “Girls don’t talk like that.”22 Weeks later, when 

MIDN KS texted MIDN Gilpin accusing him of sexually assaulting her, he 

responded to her, in part, “you literally said you liked it on top the next 

day.”23 MIDN KS never responded to that text.

About a week before she learned she had chlamydia, MIDN KS and 

MIDN Gilpin’s student Company Commander confronted her about something called a “Dear Santa” note. The company was holding a Christmas 

party. One of the events was a humorous reading of “Dear Santa” notes. 

These anonymously submitted notes asked Santa, on behalf of other midshipmen, for such things as “a reasonable sized nose” and the like. One note 

made clear reference to possible fraternization, or even sex in Bancroft Hall, 

 

21 Id. at 1503.

22 Id. at 812.

23 Defense Exhibit J at 8.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

10

between MIDN KS and MIDN Gilpin.24 The general gist of the anonymous 

note asked Santa to “get a room” for them.

The student Company Commander—the most senior midshipman in the 

company—reviewed these notes for appropriateness a couple of days before 

the party. When he saw this note, he decided to confront MIDN KS and 

MIDN Gilpin separately. He confronted MIDN KS first near the company 

wardroom inside Bancroft Hall. When he initially asked her about the note, 

she responded with a “deer in the headlights” look and asked him to step 

outside to talk privately.25 According to the student Company Commander, 

she was “surprised and upset” and said something to the effect of, “You don’t 

know the half of it,” and that she was dealing with the situation.26 MIDN 

KS’s statements caused him to recall his Sexual Assault Prevention and 

Response program training, so he changed the trajectory of the conversation 

and ceased questioning her, lest he potentially force her disclosure and limit 

her reporting options.27 He described how he “backed away in terms of [his] 

demeanor in the conversation and kind of gave her the floor to . . . talk.”28 He 

told her if she needed help, he was more than willing to assist, and he ended 

the conversation. The note was never read at the party, and the Company 

Commander did not pursue any disciplinary matters relating to the note.

About a week later, while discussing MIDN KS’s positive test result for 

chlamydia, her doctor scolded her for not being more careful in having unprotected sex with her partner. This upset her. The next day, she sent MIDN 

Gilpin the text message accusing him of giving her chlamydia and accusing 

him of sexually assaulting her. MIDN KS filed an unrestricted report of 

sexual assault the following day.

 

24 The note in question was not retained by the Company Commander to be 

available in evidence.

25 Record at 1217. 

26 Id. at 1217.

27 Id. at 1215. 

28 Id. 
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

11

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Article 66, UCMJ, requires the service courts of criminal appeals to conduct a de novo review of the factual sufficiency of all cases it hears.29 This

“awesome, plenary, de novo power”30 requires us to weigh all the admitted 

evidence and testimony at trial, make “allowances for not having personally 

observed the witnesses,” and decide whether we are convinced of the Accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.31 In doing so, we take a “fresh” and 

“impartial look at the evidence” and apply “neither a presumption of innocence nor a presumption of guilt.”32 This does not mean that a conviction 

must be “free from conflict,”33 but it must be proved beyond a reasonable 

doubt—the highest standard known to the law. If the evidence admitted at 

trial leaves us with a “fair and reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt,” we 

are required to set aside the conviction.34

B. The Conviction Lacks Factual Sufficiency

After reviewing the record, including the military judge’s special findings,35 we are not persuaded the Government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. “Reasonable doubt is not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it.”36 We do not believe the evidence excluded “every fair and 

rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”37

The Government’s theory and the presentation of nearly all of its evidence 

and testimony attempted to prove MIDN KS was too drunk to have consented 

to sex. MIDN KS even testified that she could not possibly have consented to 

 

29 United States v. Walters, 58 M.J. 391, 395 (C.A.A.F. 2003).

30 United States v. Kelly, 77 M.J. 404, 406 (C.M.A. 1990) (quoting United States v. 

Cole, 31 M.J. 272 (C.M.A. 1990)).

31 United States v. Turner, 25 M.J. 324, 325 (C.M.A. 1987). 

32 United States v. Washington, 57 M.J. 394, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2002).

33 United States v. Rankin, 63 M.J. 552, 557 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2006).

34 Military Judges’ Benchbook, Dept. of the Army Pamphlet 27-9 at 2-5-12. (10 

Sept. 2014) [hereinafter Benchbook].

35 See United States v. Clark, 75 M.J. 298 (C.A.A.F. 2016).

36 Benchbook at 2-5-12.

37 Id.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

12

sex, despite a near-total absence of memory. “Sir, I did not consent because I 

did not have the opportunity to consent because I was wasted.”38 But MIDN 

Gilpin was acquitted of this specification.39

The evidence for the other Government theory that MIDN KS was asleep, 

unconscious,40 and otherwise unaware while being penetrated by MIDN 

Gilpin was also lacking. Aside from MIDN KS’s intoxication, the Government’s evidence focused on her lack of memory due to her blackouts and how 

she was sleeping that night.

MIDN KS testified she did not remember anything at all that evening between being in the hot tub at the home of her friend’s sponsor-family and 

waking up the next morning, except for the “snapshot” of MIDN Gilpin’s face 

as she was on top of him in her bed. The only evidence of what happened in 

MIDN KS’s room is her single memory and MIDN Gilpin’s statements to his 

friends and later to MIDN KS that they had drunk sex in which she willingly 

participated. We must rely on MIDN KS’s single memory and the attendant 

circumstances of the case for proof of guilt.

MIDN KS denied that being on top of MIDN Gilpin was at all related to 

her taking an active role in intercourse. She testified, “I meant that in a way 

of, like, I think trying to, like, sit up. Not in, like, the manner in which that 

the defense . . .”41 was apparently insinuating. She agreed she told NCIS 

“something about being on top,” but then explained, “I—I just remember, 

like, his face. Like, I don’t—I really can’t, like, describe, like, in detail if I 

don’t remember.”42

Although MIDN KS had described seeing MIDN Gilpin’s face while she 

was on top of him as a “dream,” she clarified that it was a memory. The defense sleep expert testified that memories cannot be formed when a person is 

asleep.43 The Government sleep expert testified that “you’re either awake or 

you’re not.”44 So, it appears from the evidence that MIDN KS was awake

 

38 Record at 789.

39 Specification 1.

40 The military judge dismissed this portion of the specification for lack of evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 917.

41 Record at 737.

42 Id. at 737-38.

43 Id. at 1586.

44 Id. at 1200.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

13

enough to form a memory when she was on top of MIDN Gilpin. The Government sleep expert also testified that it would be nearly impossible for 

someone to sleep through a non-consensual penetration of their vagina by a 

penis unless they had “a [blood alcohol content] pushing .3, .4.”45 And that 

would require “illicit drugs . . . [a] sedative, hypnotics, or other medication.”46

The Government sleep expert described the phenomenon of “sleep inertia,” which is a “cognitive impairment upon awakening,” which could last a 

couple of minutes or longer.47 The Government expert testified that sleep 

inertia could be a reason MIDN KS had only one memory of her encounter 

with MIDN Gilpin. He also explained that a person encountering MIDN KS

in a state of sleep inertia would not know she was cognitively impaired and 

would perceive her to be awake. Persons experiencing sleep inertia can perform high-functioning tasks, such as giving detailed medical instructions over 

the phone and yet have no memory of involved interaction, as the Government sleep expert had himself once done after he awoke to a phone call at 

night. 

The Government also presented expert testimony from a forensic toxicologist. The toxicologist opined that MIDN KS was experiencing a fragmentary 

blackout during the evening and that people with fragmentary blackouts can 

do “just about anything”48 such as fly planes, drive cars, or do surgery without anyone, even themselves, being aware they are in a blackout stage.

MIDN KS changed clothes, walked, climbed stairs, used her phone, and had 

coherent phone conversations with two people, but she had no memory of 

those actions, and the people with whom she was interacting had no way of 

knowing she would not remember later.

The Government’s own expert evidence indicates MIDN KS was experiencing fragmentary blackouts where she could appear to another person to be 

functioning normally in performing high-cognitive activities. The expert 

testimony also indicated MIDN KS would very likely have been awakened by 

a non-consensual penetration. We are not convinced MIDN Gilpin could have 

penetrated MIDN KS while she was asleep without waking her. The experts 

also testified that MIDN KS could only form memories if she was awake and 

that one can only be either asleep or awake. 

 

45 Id. at 1196.

46 Id.

47 Id. at 1158-59.

48 Id. at 1141.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

14

From this evidence, the military judge’s special findings laid out a theory. 

Essentially, MIDN Gilpin entered MIDN KS’s room and climbed into her bed 

where she was unresponsive. He removed the clothes necessary to penetrate 

her vagina with his penis while she was asleep. She then awoke from the 

penetration but was in a state of “sleep inertia” and only “awake enough” to 

be “otherwise unaware” the sexual activity was occurring. We do not consider 

that theory compelling enough to reach the required standard of proof for 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even considering this theory, we are unable to rule out every “fair and rational hypothesis” other than guilt. MIDN KS could have just as easily been 

experiencing fragmentary blackout the entire time MIDN Gilpin was in her 

room. She would have not remembered anything other than her “snapshot” of 

being on top of him and MIDN Gilpin would have had no reason to know she 

was “otherwise unaware” the sexual activity was occurring. She also could 

have experienced “sleep inertia” after she woke up—which could have been at 

any time, including before MIDN Gilpin entered her room. If so, he could 

have reasonably perceived her as consenting.

It is also a “fair and rational hypothesis” that two young squad-mates at 

the Naval Academy, who one Government witness described as “close friends”

and “friends,”49 had been drinking alcohol and made a very poor decision to 

have sex. During the trial, expert opinion confirmed that alcohol does indeed 

lower inhibitions. 

In addition, it is difficult to consider the physical and practical aspects of 

the Government’s case without finding reasonable doubt. According to the 

Government, MIDN Gilpin entered MIDN KS’s room, saw her asleep in her 

loft-style bed, and climbed up into it. He then removed whatever clothing she 

wore below the waist, and some of his clothing, too, and penetrated her vagina with his penis. At some point, he forcibly moved her dead-weight body—

possibly without waking her, or doing so where she was in a state of “sleep 

inertia”—to where she was on top of him while he continued to penetrate her. 

Then, MIDN KS, now awake but experiencing “sleep inertia,” was in an “otherwise unaware” state. In doing this, he also managed to give her several 

“hickeys.” MIDN Gilpin completed these acts without knowing if either of her 

roommates might return at any time to discover him sexually assaulting her.

Regardless of what circumstantial evidence may exist, whatever the extent of MIDN Gilpin and MIDN KS’s friendship was, whatever credibility 

problems either various Defense or Government witnesses had, or whatever 

 

49 Id. at 1077.
United States v. Gilpin, NMCCA No. 201900033

15

expert testimony either side presented concerning sleep behavior, intoxication, or “counter-intuitive victim behavior,” we find the simpler explanation 

of ill-advised, drunken consensual sex a serious possibility that we cannot

ignore—and certainly do not consider it a “fanciful doubt” or “ingenious conjecture.”

Even beyond the physical and practical aspects of the alleged crime, one 

simply cannot ignore the Defense theory that MIDN KS had substantial 

motives to believe she would not have consented to sex. It is entirely possible 

MIDN KS does not remember what happened, but MIDN Gilpin reasonably 

believed they had consensual sex. She was not doing well academically or 

physically at the Naval Academy. She just ended a relationship with a boyfriend, which, according to all witnesses, made her very upset. She drank 

alcohol to excess that evening. She knew her student chain of command was 

aware of an incident that could get her separated from the Naval Academy 

unless it was a sexual assault. And she apparently, wrongly believed MIDN 

Gilpin gave her chlamydia. 

There is simply too much reasonable doubt associated with the evidence 

in this case. We are not charged with deciding “who to believe,” but simply 

whether the Government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It did 

not.

III. CONCLUSION

The finding and sentence are SET ASIDE. The charge and specification 

are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. All rights, privileges, and property of 

which Midshipman Gilpin has been deprived due to the finding and sentence 

are ordered restored. Arts. 58b(c), 75(a), UCMJ. 

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR.

Clerk of Court