Homer R. Langston Sergeant First Class U.S. Army Convicted Sex Offender Indecent Assault

Home > Sexual Crimes Against Women > Homer R. Langston

Name: Homer R. Langston

Case: U.S. v. Langston No. 99-0419

Date Of Appeal: January 19, 2000

Plea: Not Guilty

Charges: Indecent assault and indecent exposure, et all

Military Branch: U.S. Army

Listed In National Sex Offenders Registry? NO

In early 1997, appellant was tried by a military judge sitting alone at a general court-martial in Mannheim, Germany. In accordance with his pleas, he was found guilty of maltreatment of a subordinate, adultery, indecent assault, using indecent language, indecent exposure, and obstruction of justice, in violation of Articles 93 and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 893 and 934, respectively.

Contrary to his pleas, he was also found guilty of additional specifications of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 42 months, total forfeitures, and reduction to the grade of E-1. The convening authority approved the sentence as adjudged on June 20, 1997, and the Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. See United States v. Langston, 50 MJ 514 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1999).

Appellant is a married soldier with approximately 18 1/2 years of active service. He began his initial tour of enlistment in 1967, served in Vietnam, and then had almost a 12-year break in his military service before returning to active duty in 1981.

At the time of these offenses, appellant was assigned to the staff at Mannheim prison in Germany as a platoon sergeant where he repeatedly maltreated three female prison staff members, Specialist (SPC) T, Private First Class (PFC) W, and Staff Sergeant (SSG) C, by making offensive sexual remarks and advances, committing indecent assaults, and indecently exposing himself to them.

SSG C was not required to testify on the merits because appellant stipulated to the acts underlying his plea of guilty with regard the charged offenses involving her. R. 175-78. Her testimony on sentencing during direct examination, like that of PFC W, only went to victim impact. There was no dispute as to how these offenses occurred or any conflict with appellant’s guilty-plea admissions. R. 247-54. Accordingly, we see no possibility of altered testimony on her part.