The Navy's criminal appeals court tossed out the conviction of Gunnery Sgt. Rory Hirst, a Marine found guilty of using ecstasy. The judges were convinced by testimony to the strength of his character, calling his legal argument "the good Marine defense." (Donna L. Burnett/U.S. Air Force)
A Marine senior noncommissioned officer found guilty of using ecstasy was exonerated by a Navy appeals court, which ruled in essence that he is too good for the charge to be true.
Three judges from the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals unanimously ruled for Gunnery Sgt. Rory Hirst in a decision earlier this month, even calling his legal argument “the good Marine defense.”
“’Believe people when they tell you who they are,’” they wrote in the Sept. 4 ruling, quoting the American poet Maya Angelou, a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The decision overturned Hirst’s drug use conviction in an April 2022 court-martial at Camp Pendleton, Calif. He was sentenced to a reduction in rank from E-7 to E-5 and ordered to serve 90 days in jail.
But a Marine described as “superman” didn’t suddenly begin using ecstasy, also known as MDMA, 18 years into his career, the appellate judges decided.
They also cited the testimony of eight fellow Marines, who spoke at the court-martial of Hirst’s strong character and feats in combat.
His supporters “weren’t just ordinary Marines either,” the judges said, noting that the government in court had called them “stellar” and “truly impressive.”
One lieutenant colonel described Hirst’s courage under fire during the 30-day battle for Marjah, Afghanistan, in 2010, for which Hirst received a Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a “V” device for valor.
Hirst was cited for his rescue while under fire of a Marine who had succumbed to heat exhaustion and for his decision to go back into an ambush to join Canadian personnel pinned down by enemy fire, according to court documents.
Hirst told the judge in his court-martial that he did not use ecstasy and couldn’t explain why a urine sample collected in 2021 had tested positive.
“With due respect to the late Ms. Angelou, that’s a story we’ve heard before—more than once,” the judges said. But Hirst “isn’t just any Marine,” they added.
The judges also slammed the handling of Hirst’s urine sample, which was taken during a unit sweep after the July 4 holiday. In a sweep, every member of the unit is directed to provide a sample for testing.
The substance abuse control officer sent the sample for testing nearly a month after it was collected, far later than the limit of 48 hours specified in Marine Corps guidelines, according to court filings.
“According to him, with the careers of his fellow Marines hanging in the balance, ‘there’s no timeline,’” the judges wrote of the officer, identified in court documents as “SSgt. D.W.”
Documentation on the whereabouts of the urine sample during that month was also incomplete, according to court documents. A discrepancy in the paperwork filed with the sample was chalked up to sloppiness by the substance abuse control officer, according to court records.
Furthermore, in a box that contained Hirst’s sample, the urine samples of three other Marines had leaked, court documents state.
“The evidentiary deficiencies in the record before us are legion,” the appellate judges wrote.
They said the prosecution’s closing argument, in which they described Hirst as a rock star, bears repeating.
“Experience tells us that rock stars can do drugs,” the court wrote. “However, we are skeptical of the Government’s claim that truly great Marines do the same.
“But we need not resolve that philosophical debate because we are clearly convinced that Appellant’s conviction is against the weight of the evidence.”
