Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
The Case in Brief
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Fulsom, No. 202500166, on May 29, 2026. Officer members at a general court-martial at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam convicted a 19-year-old Lance Corporal, contrary to his pleas, of attempted sexual assault of a child and attempted sexual abuse of a child by indecent communication, both under Article 80, UCMJ. The charges arose from an Army CID sting, Operation Keiki Shield-18, in which an agent ran a fictitious persona — “Chloe,” listed as 18 on an adult dating app but disclosed by text as “almos 15.” The members sentenced Fulsom to reduction to E-1, forty-five days of confinement, total forfeitures, and a dishonorable discharge. The military judge conditionally dismissed the indecent-communication specification as an unreasonable multiplication of charges, to ripen upon completion of appellate review. Fulsom’s sole assignment of error — that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient because the Government entrapped him — failed, and NMCCA affirmed.
The Issue That Matters: Why Entrapment Failed — and What’s Left of It
Under R.C.M. 916(g) and United States v. Hall, once the defense shows a Government agent originated the suggestion to commit the offense, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either that the criminal design did not originate with it or that the accused was predisposed. The military judge found the defense raised and instructed the members accordingly — the Government carried the burden. The defense still lost, and the opinion shows exactly how the modern sting playbook defeats entrapment.
First, inducement requires more than opportunity. The agents used trickery — an adult app, an age-regressed decoy photo — but the law permits stratagem. What the record lacked was pressure, persuasion, threats, or appeals to sympathy. Second, the agents’ “matching” methodology is built for this litigation: they never raise sexual activity first, escalating only to whatever level the suspect introduces. Fulsom raised it first. Third, the agents offered repeated “off-ramps” — explicit chances to walk away — and the court treated each ignored exit as affirmative evidence of predisposition. Fulsom initially refused after learning the age, but re-engaged within minutes, asked for a real-time photo and video calls to verify “Chloe” was real, proposed intercourse, told his roommate his intentions, and rode an Uber forty-five minutes with condoms in his pocket.
The most consequential doctrinal move comes last: Fulsom repeatedly voiced hesitation — “not risking my career,” “it’s illegal.” The court read those statements not as the conscience of an innocent man but as fear of apprehension, which it called strong evidence of predisposition. That inversion — your client’s expressed reluctance becomes the Government’s proof — should shape how every military defense lawyer evaluates sting cases. The court also conducted a full Article 66(d)(1)(B) factual sufficiency review, finding the gateway showing met and listening to the call recordings itself; we explain that post-2021 framework here.
Lessons for the Defense
Fulsom confirms that entrapment rarely wins on sufficiency review where the suspect first raises sexual activity and travels. The fight that remains is at trial: securing the instruction (won here), forcing the Government to its beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden, and building inducement facts — persistence after refusal, emotional appeals, extraordinary pressure — where they genuinely exist. Counsel must also confront the digital record early; the single deleted “almos 15” text recovered from the phone extraction handed the Government consciousness of guilt. Attempt liability under Article 80 means no actual child need exist, and these prosecutions move on overwhelming documentary evidence, which is why experienced Article 120 defense lawyers insist on involvement from the first moment of the investigation.
Experience Matters
Online sting cases under the UCMJ turn on doctrine — inducement, predisposition, substantial step — and on details most counsel never see coming, like how an ignored off-ramp or a deleted text will read on appeal. Our military defense counsel have defended these cases at trial and on appeal for decades. If you are under investigation or charged after an online operation, call Cave & Freeburg, LLP, at (703) 298-9562 or (917) 701-8961 before speaking to anyone.