Name: David E. Gilley
U.S. V. Gilley No. 00-0559
Date Of Appeal: November 15, 2000
Release Date: February 27, 2003
Plea: Not Guilty
Charges: Indecent Acts With A Child, 6 counts
Military Branch: U.S. Air Force
Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? Yes - Indiana
An Unofficial Site
Of
United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
An Unofficial Site
Of United States Military
Sexual Offender
Conviction Records
Not Associated With The U.S. Military Or Government
David Edmond Gilley
Technical Sergeant U. S. Air Force
Convicted Sex Offender
Indecent Acts With A Child
On April 22-23, 1997, appellant was tried by a general court-martial consisting of officer and enlisted members. Appellant was charged with nine specifications of committing indecent acts on his three stepchildren and four specifications involving assault and battery of the same children, in violation of Articles 134 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 934 and 928. He was convicted of six specifications of indecent acts and one specification of assault and battery. Appellant was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for ten years, total forfeiture of pay and allowances, and reduction to E-1. The convening authority approved the adjudged sentence. The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Appellant was convicted of committing indecent acts on his three stepchildren (ages ten to fourteen), and committing an assault and battery on a stepdaughter. The evidence showed that appellant convinced the children to let him commit the indecent acts by giving them money and telephone privileges, and letting them spend the night with friends. Appellant and his wife also had two biological children, but neither of these children was involved in the offenses.
The defense theory of the case had several components. First, that the sexual misconduct with his stepchildren never happened. According to appellant, his stepchildren were controlled by their mother and had been coached to lie in order to receive victim assistance money. In those instances where appellant did not deny the conduct at issue, he claimed that he and the children were just playing around and were not engaged in sexual misconduct. Second, regarding the assault and battery, appellant claimed that he was administering fair punishment. Third, appellant attempted to discredit two of the three investigators by implying that they fabricated appellant’s oral confessions based on their prior knowledge of the stepchildren’s allegations. Appellant claimed the investigators then put those fabrications in a written statement, which appellant refused to sign because it contained fabrications.
The allegations arose in Loudoun County, Virginia. On July 30, 1996, Donald Canham, a criminal investigator with the Loudoun County Sheriff’s Office, with thirty years of experience, interviewed appellant along with Special Agent (SA) Washington of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) and Henry Stribling (a Loudoun County Social Services Child Protection case worker). Appellant was advised of his Fifth Amendment rights and elected to cooperate and answer questions. When confronted with the allegations, appellant initially said he had no recollection of the alleged acts. Appellant later admitted to several of the allegations.
Following this interview, Loudoun County authorities released jurisdiction to the Air Force. On August 1, 1996, SA Richardson and SA Washington interviewed appellant at Bolling Air Force Base. SA Washington did the questioning; SA Richardson primarily took notes. The interview began between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. By the time the interview concluded at approximately 2:30 p.m., appellant admitted to acts involving his stepson’s genitals, touching his stepdaughter’s breasts, putting his hands down his stepdaughter’s pants and touching her genitals, watching a stepdaughter masturbate with a vibrator, and hitting a stepdaughter on the tongue with a spoon. The agents released appellant to go to lunch at 2:30 p.m.
When he returned at 4:30 p.m., appellant was presented a typed statement that was based on the notes taken by SA Richardson. According to the investigators’ testimony, without reading this statement, appellant refused to sign it, stating that he was seeking legal counsel.
