Legal Defense
$69 raised
1% of $10k goal
3 contributors
4 Years running

Samuel Sartain joined the United States Army in 2006 as a 11B Infantryman. He served a combat tour in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting on the ground for 27 months and earning the Combat Infantry Badge. His friends, family, and neighbors all know him to be an upstanding, honest, and hardworking person with no criminal record whatsoever. The allegations against him are in no way representative of Sam.

A fellow soldier alleged that he sexually abused her after being told a rumor that he had assaulted her while she was intoxicated. The officers put in charge of the investigation completely ignored a lack of forensic evidence or eye witness testimony and focused solely on securing a conviction. The Army conducted an inquiry into the allegations and reviewed the criminal case evidence and despite not having even one solid piece of evidence pushed forward with a General Courts Martial.

Samuel Sartain served in the United States Army with honor and dignity. That honor and dignity was stripped away from him on March 20th 2014. The trial itself was a mess of misconduct and pertinet facts ommited to show guilt without any proof. The prosecutor openly admitted that no hard evidence existed and the case was based solely on circumstantial evidence. The three witnesses gave inconsistent testimony that did not match the statements they gave to the CID Special Agent the night of the incident. One witness particularly went from "He seemed drunk and disoriented and had no idea where he was." to the day of the trial "he looked guilty".

So how is it the judge still found him guilty? The judge ignored the lack of any physical evidence and other testimony, along with evidence introducing reasonable doubt, and from all appearances convicted him solely because of the alleged rumor that no eye witness could cooberate.

Samuel Sartain is the victim of an incompetent law enforcement investigation, coaching of witnesses, and a broken justice system. Now he faces the prospect of spending the rest of his life as a convicted sex offender and being forced to register for the next decade.

The Facts (that don't add up):

Initially Sartain was charged with Article 120 Rape because the results of an examination on the alleged victim showed signs of vaginal tearing and other indications of possible sexual assault. (It is possible she was raped that night, however the crime was not commited by the accused) after a thorough examination of clothing ceased from the accused and a full forensic examination of the accused to include DNA, fiber, fingerprints and a full body swab for evidence the accused was ruled out as of possibly being a rapist. Instead of finding the rapist or dropping charges against Samuel Sartain the charges were "lowered" to something that requires a little less proof for a conviction.

UCMJ Article 120 Abusive Sexual Contact

Maximum Sentence: 7 years

UCMJ Article 128 Assault Consumated by Battery

Maximum Sentence: 6 months


How could someone if trully guilty of such a crime be given such a short sentence (The prosecution asked for 6 months, there was NO plea deal or negotiations)

a.) It is a breach of protocol to convict someone of both an offense and lesser included offense (example: Murder and Manslaughter for the same victim) however I was convicted of both Article 120 and Article 128.


Thank you,


11B United States Army Active Duty

Operaton Iraqi Freedom (OCT2006-DEC2007)

Dog Company, 1st Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd BCT, 2nd Infantry Division

Operation Enduring Freedom (MAY2009-JUN2010)

Dog Company, 1st Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th BCT, 4th Infantry Division

Activity highlights See all3
Follow this campaign to receive updates by email.

People just like you

People just like you have raised $126,000,000+ for causes they and their friends care about.

Start your own campaign
Recent contributions