Command Taints Court Martial – Case Dismissed
U.S. v. Navy E-6 – Norfolk Navy Base, VA
Allegations: 4 Specifications of sexual assault / Abusive sexual contact, assault consummated by battery
Maximum Punishment: 1 year in prison, Bad-Conduct Discharge (BCD), sex offender registration
Result: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Discharge: NONE
Location / Branch / Rank: Norfolk Navy Base, VA / Navy / E-6
Case Summary
Our client, a Navy E-6 stationed at Norfolk Navy Base, Virginia, was accused of
sexually assaulting
a fellow sailor. The charges included four specifications of sexual assault and abusive sexual contact, along with an assault consummated by battery charge. Together, those charges carried the potential for a year in federal confinement, a Bad-Conduct Discharge, and lifetime sex offender registration — consequences that would have ended his naval career and fundamentally altered the rest of his life.
Civilian defense attorney Michael Waddington and Coast Guard attorney LT Nicholas Smith took the case and prepared to fight every charge before an enlisted jury. What happened next exposed serious misconduct within the command — misconduct serious enough that the military judge dismissed all charges with prejudice before the trial even reached opening statements.
What “Dismissed With Prejudice” Means for a Service Member
When a military judge dismisses charges with prejudice, the government is permanently barred from re-filing those same charges against the accused. It is one of the strongest outcomes a defendant can receive short of a full acquittal at trial. In this case, that result meant our client walked away from court with no conviction, no discharge, and no requirement to register as a sex offender.
A dismissal of this kind does not happen automatically. It requires the defense to identify serious legal violations, build a clear record of those violations before the military judge, and argue persuasively that no lesser remedy — such as a continuance or an instruction to the jury — could fix the harm already done to the accused’s right to a fair trial.
The Prosecution Withheld Critical Evidence
The case began to unravel shortly before opening statements, when the defense learned that the prosecution had not turned over a complete copy of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) investigative file. Specifically, a witness statement had been withheld — a statement that was directly helpful to our client’s defense.
The government’s explanation was that NCIS had simply “forgotten” to hand over this document. Whether that explanation is accurate or not, the effect was the same: the defense was denied access to favorable evidence it was legally entitled to receive. Under military law, the prosecution is obligated to disclose evidence that is material to the defense, and withholding a witness statement that could support innocence is a serious violation of that obligation.
The defense acted immediately. Rather than asking for a recess, the attorneys called the witness referenced in the newly discovered statement and put him on the stand.
A Witness Who Changed His Story — and Why
When the defense questioned the witness, it became clear that he had changed his account after speaking with NCIS. His original statement, the one the prosecution withheld, was consistent with the defense’s theory of the case. His revised account was not.
There was a specific reason the defense believed this shift had occurred. The command’s O-6 commander — a senior officer with direct authority over the case and over the personnel involved — had hand-selected this same witness to serve as the alleged victim’s Victim Advocate (VA).
A Victim Advocate’s assigned role is to support and protect the victim throughout the military justice process. That is a legitimate and important function. However, when a person who has already given a witness statement favorable to the accused is then placed in a formal, command-directed role requiring unwavering loyalty to the alleged victim, the integrity of that person’s testimony is fundamentally compromised. He was now in a position where telling the truth — if it helped the accused — would conflict directly with his assigned duty. Unsurprisingly, his account had changed.
Unlawful Command Influence: What It Is and Why It Mattered Here
The defense argued that the command had committed
Unlawful Command Influence
(UCI) — sometimes called the “mortal enemy” of military justice.
UCI occurs when military commanders use their authority in a way that improperly interferes with the military justice process. This can include pressuring witnesses, influencing convening authorities, or — as in this case — placing a witness in a command-directed role that effectively compels him to align his testimony with the prosecution’s version of events.
The two specific grounds for the UCI argument were straightforward:
- Hiding crucial evidence. The NCIS file — which contained a statement favorable to the defense — was withheld from the defense team until the morning of trial. Whether intentional or negligent, the result was that the defense was denied the opportunity to properly investigate, prepare for, and use that evidence.
- Intentionally tainting the witness. By appointing the witness as the victim’s Victim Advocate, the O-6 commander placed him in a role that created an irreconcilable conflict between his duty as a witness and his newly assigned command obligation. This tainted his ability to testify freely and truthfully.
Together, these two actions blocked our client’s right to a fair trial. The military
defense lawyers
presented this argument to the military judge, who agreed. The judge dismissed all four specifications of sexual assault, the abusive sexual contact charge, and the assault consummated by battery charge — all with prejudice.
What This Case Teaches Service Members Facing Similar Charges
This case demonstrates several important realities for any service member who finds themselves under investigation or facing a court-martial for sexual assault allegations.
Evidence Violations Can Be Decisive
The government’s failure to disclose the NCIS witness statement on time was not a minor procedural hiccup. It was a violation that — when combined with the Victim Advocate appointment — gave the defense the foundation to seek dismissal. Service members and their families should understand that experienced defense counsel will scrutinize every document the government produces and fight hard for full disclosure.
Command Actions During a Case Can Work in Your Favor
Commanders often believe they are supporting victims and the military justice process when they take steps like appointing Victim Advocates or closely managing an investigation. However, when those actions cross the line into influencing witnesses or controlling the flow of evidence, they can constitute UCI — and UCI can destroy a prosecution. An experienced defense team will identify these actions and use them strategically.
Early Retention of Counsel Is Critical
In this case, the defense was ready to go to trial, had reviewed the available evidence thoroughly, and was positioned to respond immediately when the suppressed witness statement came to light. That preparation made the difference. Service members who wait until charges are referred to seek experienced defense counsel risk losing the early investigative and strategic advantages that can change the outcome of a case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Unlawful Command Influence and how does it affect a court-martial?
Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) occurs when a military commander uses the power of their rank or position to improperly interfere with the military justice process. This can include pressuring witnesses, influencing the convening authority’s decisions, or placing witnesses in roles that compromise their ability to testify freely. UCI is taken extremely seriously under military law because it undermines the fairness of the entire court-martial system. When a military judge finds that UCI occurred, the consequences can include suppression of evidence, dismissal of charges, or — as in this case — a full dismissal with prejudice.
What does it mean when a military judge dismisses charges “with prejudice”?
A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent ruling that prevents the government from re-filing the same charges against the same accused person. It is different from a dismissal without prejudice, where the prosecution could potentially refile. A with-prejudice dismissal is one of the most complete victories available in the court-martial system outside of a not-guilty verdict from a jury. It means the accused faces no further prosecution on those specific charges.
What should a service member do if they believe the command is interfering with their court-martial?
A service member who believes the command is improperly influencing their case — whether by withholding evidence, pressuring witnesses, or taking other actions that taint the proceedings — should immediately notify their defense counsel. Document any incidents you are aware of: dates, names, and what was said or done. An experienced military defense attorney can investigate, gather evidence of UCI, and raise it before the military judge at the appropriate time. Do not attempt to confront command personnel on your own, and do not discuss your case with anyone other than your attorney.