Gonzalez & Waddington, Attorneys at Law have defended hundreds of service members accused of Article 120 sexual assault and Article 120c offenses. Many of these cases come down to nothing more than one person’s word against another’s. This guide explains how the military prosecutes so-called “he said, she said” cases and how the defense can dismantle weak allegations built on shaky testimony.

How Prosecutors Build “He Said, She Said” Cases

• Focus on credibility: The accuser’s testimony becomes the centerpiece of the government’s case.
• Emotion-driven narrative: Prosecutors tell a powerful story of trauma, often backed by expert testimony about victim behavior.
• Corroboration-lite: Prosecutors rely on small details—text messages, alcohol use, demeanor—to “corroborate” the accuser’s version.
• Character attacks: The accused is often painted as dishonest, aggressive, or opportunistic, especially if they made inconsistent statements.
• Forensic framing: Even when there is no DNA or injury, prosecutors argue that most assaults leave no trace.

Government Tools in These Cases

• Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC): Supports the accuser and helps shield them from aggressive defense questioning.
• Victim behavior experts: Psychologists testify about “counterintuitive victim behavior” (delayed reporting, continued contact).
• MRE 404(b): Attempts to admit prior acts of misconduct by the accused to bolster credibility of the accuser.
• MRE 412 restrictions: Block defense from introducing evidence of the accuser’s sexual history.
• Command climate: Commanders are under pressure to prosecute, creating an environment that favors referral to trial.

Defense Strategies in “He Said, She Said” Article 120 Cases

• Expose inconsistencies: Highlight contradictions in the accuser’s statements across interviews, texts, and testimony.
• Leverage digital evidence: Use call logs, social media, location data, and texts to undermine the government’s timeline.
• Attack motive: Show bias or secondary gain—breakups, jealousy, retaliation, transfers, or career benefits.
• Use science: Toxicology, psychology, and forensics can counter vague memory or exaggerated claims.
• Highlight reasonable doubt: Jurors must be unanimous; one unanswered question can change the outcome.

Typical Timeline of a “He Said, She Said” Case

1. Initial report: Often days, weeks, or months after the alleged incident.
2. Investigation: Accuser interviewed multiple times; accused pressured to make a statement.
3. Preferral/referral: Charges pressed with little or no physical evidence.
4. Trial: Accuser testifies; government calls expert witnesses to explain away weaknesses.
5. Defense case: Focuses on credibility, digital evidence, and exposing bias.

Common Defense Mistakes

• Failing to attack the timeline with precision.
• Cross-examining aggressively instead of surgically, which risks alienating the jury.
• Ignoring digital and forensic evidence that can expose inconsistencies.
• Assuming “no evidence = automatic win” (jurors may convict based on emotion alone).
• Not preparing for government “victim behavior” experts who neutralize credibility attacks.

Video: How the Military Prosecutes “He Said, She Said” Cases

Accused in a “He Said, She Said” Article 120 Case?

The government banks on jurors believing the accuser without question. We dismantle these cases by exposing contradictions, highlighting motives, and building evidence-based alternative narratives. Don’t let a word-against-word case end your career.

Gonzalez & Waddington — ucmjdefense.com — 1-800-921-8607

FAQs: “He Said, She Said” Article 120 Cases