This study examines how military appellate courts rationalize overturning sexual assault convictions through qualitative analysis of opinions finding factual insufficiency. The analysis reveals that courts frequently question victim credibility based on delayed reporting, counterintuitive victim behavior, and continued contact with perpetrators - factors that trauma research has shown to be common among sexual assault survivors. The findings suggest that recent statutory changes limiting appellate courts’ factual sufficiency review authority may be insufficient to address underlying attitudinal barriers to fair adjudication of sexual assault cases. Fansher and Cox propose reforms to judicial selection, education, and oversight processes, while acknowledging significant practical and legal challenges to implementation. The study contributes to growing literature on institutional responses to sexual assault by illuminating how rape myths manifest in appellate reasoning.
Ashley Fansher & Chris Cox, Rationalizing Rape: How Military Appellate Courts Get to Yes, 28 J. Gender, Race & Just. 419 (2025).