A military judge in Wichita found Gutierrez guilty in January 2011 on seven of eight counts of aggravated assault and of violating his commander’s order to notify partners about his HIV status and use condoms.
…In its petition, the defence argued that the evidence was not sufficient to prove Gutierrez was HIV positive. The test used has since been recalled by the Food and Drug Administration because it was susceptible to false reactions.
His attorneys also said that even if Gutierrez had HIV, his medical records showed his viral load was so low during that time that he had a ‘zero chance’ of infecting anyone through oral sex and a 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 chance of infecting a partner through unprotected intercourse.
‘If the court agrees with us and determines David was not infected to the point that he could have caused grievous bodily injury to others, this would gut substantially 90 percent of the case against David,’ McDermott said.
When HIV+ (in the classic antibody sense) and with a ‘so low’ viral load, you could argue that Gutierrez either only possesses an ahead-of-time vaccinated status, or indeed that his test was erroneous. Like all HIV tests.
[Source: Daily Mail]