Text 954-799-4019 to request a consultation
Call 1-800-921-8607
UCMJ-site-logo

Exposing Bias in Military Sexual Assault Investigations: Insights from a Court Martial Lawyer

Military sexual assault cases under Article 120b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are among the most challenging and sensitive cases in the military legal system. While the military justice system aims to uphold fairness and justice, recent discussions reveal deep concerns about investigative practices that may jeopardize the rights of the accused. In a revealing video, criminal defense lawyer Michael Waddington shares critical insights into how military investigations often start with a presumption of guilt, compromising the integrity of the process.

Introduction: The Presumption of Guilt in Military Investigations

Michael Waddington, a seasoned criminal defense attorney specializing in military law, recently recounted a striking experience from a case involving the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI). The head of an OSI detachment testified about the thoroughness of their investigative efforts, yet Waddington’s cross-examination exposed glaring omissions that reveal a systemic bias. This blog post explores these concerns in detail, analyzing the impact of such investigative shortcomings on military justice and the rights of service members.

Key Issues Highlighted by Michael Waddington

Investigation Practices That Favor the Accuser

Waddington emphasizes that military investigators frequently collect only evidence that supports the accusation, neglecting to pursue or verify information that might exonerate the accused. For example, in the case he discusses, investigators failed to examine the alleged victims’ phones or verify the authenticity of text messages presented as evidence. Despite requests, they did not seek warrants or seize devices, relying solely on selective interview answers and evidence favorable to the prosecution.

Failure to Investigate Victims’ Credibility

Perhaps most troubling is the admitted policy of OSI agents to not investigate victims’ statements thoroughly, citing concerns about intrusiveness. Waddington recounts an agent openly admitting that they do not verify whether victims provide complete or truthful information, effectively allowing fabricated or cherry-picked evidence to go unchallenged. This approach leaves room for false accusations to influence the outcome without proper scrutiny.

The Consequences of Ignoring Exculpatory Evidence

The story of a victim who perjured herself by claiming she avoided the accused post-assault, while secretly dating him afterward, illustrates the dangers of such investigative lapses. Without verifying these inconsistencies, the military justice system risks convicting innocent service members based on unverified or false testimony.

Broader Context: Military Justice System Challenges

Military sexual assault cases are notoriously complex. The military justice system must balance the need to protect victims and hold perpetrators accountable with safeguarding the rights of the accused. However, the adversarial nature of military investigations, combined with institutional pressures to produce convictions, can lead to biased investigations.

Experts and advocates have called for reforms to ensure impartiality, including better training for investigators, clearer policies on evidence collection, and enhanced oversight mechanisms. The concerns raised by Waddington align with broader calls to improve fairness and transparency within the military justice process.

The Role of Defense Attorneys in Ensuring Fairness

Waddington’s testimony underscores the critical role defense attorneys play in counteracting investigative bias. Defense teams must rigorously scrutinize evidence, challenge investigative procedures, and confront witnesses to uncover the truth. Without skilled legal representation, accused service members may be at a severe disadvantage, facing convictions based on incomplete or misleading evidence.

Michael Waddington and Alexandra Gonzalez-Waddington, renowned military defense attorneys, have dedicated their careers to defending service members against false allegations. Their pioneering work and legal scholarship have significantly shaped military criminal defense, emphasizing the importance of protecting the accused’s rights amid challenging and often hostile environments.

Conclusion: Advocating for Justice and Due Process

Military sexual assault cases demand justice for victims and fairness for the accused. However, as Michael Waddington reveals, current investigative practices can suffer from bias, undermining due process. It is vital for service members accused under Article 120b UCMJ to seek experienced legal counsel capable of exposing investigative flaws and defending their rights effectively.

Ultimately, reforming military investigation protocols and fostering a culture of impartiality are essential steps toward a more equitable military justice system. Until then, the vigilance and expertise of defense attorneys remain crucial in safeguarding liberty and truth within military courts.

Additional Resources

If you or a loved one is facing military sexual assault allegations, contact a qualified court martial defense lawyer immediately to protect your rights and ensure a fair defense.

Full Transcription

My name is Michael Waddington, and I’m a criminal defense attorney. I want to tell you about a case that I did recently in the Air Force, where the head of an OSI detachment was on the stand. Now, the agent was brought in to talk about all the wonderful things they did in the investigation, how thorough they were, and how his agents left no stone unturned, basically. And so on cross-examination, this agent, who was in charge of all the investigations at this Air Force base, was testifying on cross about the things that he didn’t do. They didn’t look at the victim’s phone, verify the text message from any of the alleged victims. They didn’t search this. They didn’t seize that. They didn’t ask for a warrant. They didn’t do anything aside from interview a few people and collect a few pieces of evidence. Everything that pointed to guilt, they collected. But when it came to investigating the credibility and the background of some of the complaining witnesses, they did nothing. We asked this agent on the stand under oath, did you verify that the alleged victim gave you all the messages that related to this incident? And he basically went on to explain, well, we asked her if we could search her phone, and she said no. And he says, we don’t investigate victims. I was like, what do you mean by that? Like, you don’t verify information from a witness just because they say they’re a victim. So if someone says they’re a victim and they say, oh, here’s all the phone messages between the two of us, you don’t even look to see if that’s the case? He goes, yeah, we don’t investigate victims. It’s not our policy. We don’t do it because it’s intrusive. So if they want to give us some stuff, we’ll take it. If they don’t want to give it to us, fine. We’re not going to seize it. We’re not going to get a warrant. So you could provide information that is 100% fabricated or that is cherry-picked, meaning that you picked certain pieces, that is edited, that is spliced together, that is misleading, that is fictitious, that is false. You could accuse someone and give that over to law enforcement, and they will not double-check, verify, ask to see the phone, or do anything. So they could be getting this information from someone who’s a pathological known liar. Like one of the victims in that case perjured herself to the judge repeatedly. It says that she was raped and never saw my client after that because she was so afraid of him. She told the judge that. And then it turns out that she, in fact, was going on dates with him for the weeks following the alleged rape. For example, like that person, they would not background check, not fact check, not verify even the word of someone who perjured themselves on the witness stand. So don’t assume that anyone’s going to do that. You’re going to have to get a lawyer to do that properly and effectively. And then to confront the witnesses, the law enforcement, the victims, all those people that should be seeking justice, that are instead seeking quick convictions, that must be brought out in front of the judge or the jury in your kid’s case or in your case, if you’re the one being accused. Because otherwise, these people that are now coming forward and making allegations, some of them, they will lie their butt off. They will perjure themselves. They will fabricate evidence. They will cherry pick evidence. And you will not be able to do anything about it unless and until you go forward and you put together a team to represent you that is actually looking out for your life, your liberty

Table of Contents

Exposing Bias in Military Sexual Assault Investigations: Insights from a Court Martial Lawyer

NEED MILITARY LAW HELP?

Fill out this form or call 1-800-921-8607 to request a consultation.

Recent Blogs