October 8, 2026, United States v. E-2, United States Air Force, Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. Airman is ordered into pre-trial confinement after allegations of sexually assaulting two females in consecutive weekends. According to the allegations, both individuals were incapable of consenting due to impairment by alcohol. Airman retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. The Government prefers charges against Mr. Gapasin's client and the civilian female chooses not to participate in the General Court-Martial, though the female Airman proceeds. However, the Government is permitted to introduce evidence on both allegations under Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 413. The charges preferred also include drug use based on a positive urinalysis for THC-8 and sexual assault. At the Article 32 hearing, Gapasin argues for the dismissal of the drug charge based on a Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces (CAAF) opinion one week earlier. In United States v. Bass, CAAF found that permissive inference was no longer legally acceptable where THC-8 is the alleged ingested drug from hemp products, which are largely unregulated. That charge was dismissed but the sole sex assault charge was referred. After the litigation of several motions filed by Mr. Gapasin, the case proceeded to trial. At trial, the Government played clips from the client's 4-hour interrogation by OSI agents. Statements such as, "they were too drunk to consent" and "she was too drunk so I had to carry her," were elicited from the client prior to charging him. Despite the interrogation, Gapasin focused on a specific element of the offense, i.e., whether or not the Government could prove that she was truly incapable of consenting due to impairment by alcohol. Because of this focus on a single element of the offense, Mr. Gapasin advised his client to select a Judge Alone forum rather than Enlisted Panel. The reason for focusing on this element is because evidence showed the accuser only had two cranberry vodkas before she supposedly started going "in and out of consciousness" after a karaoke contest. There was also no evidence of an ingestion of drugs. Gapasin argued how this simply was not possible, nor for her condition to reflect "passing out" throughout the night. There was a "missing piece" according to Mr. Gapasin and based on the toxicology and the science, it was much more reasonable to believe she was "blacking out" rather than "passing out." Gapasin also argued how regret over violating her own vows of abstinence was a factor as well. Gapasin called his expert toxicologist to the stand who verified all of this, and to only have two drinks and to be "passing out"--according to how the alleged victim claimed--was not the norm. The toxicologist further stated that to immediately accept the alleged victim was intoxicated based solely on "outward conditions" was a move "fraught with peril" because outward conditions cannot help to verify whether someone is incapable of consenting. Following a thorough cross-examination of the primary accuser as well as the Government's forensic psychologist, the Judge Alone forum returned its finding. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL--NOT GUILTY to the Charge and Specification for Sexual Assault. NO Confinement, NO Federal Conviction, and NO Sex Offender Registration.