Sexual Assault Crimes | Military Sexual Assault Defense Lawyers

Indecent Viewing Court Martial Lawyers Article 120c Defense Attorney

Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, Broadcasting or Distributing of an Indecent Recording – Article 120c, UCMJ

(For offenses committed after 1 January 2019)

Our firm of aggressive sex crime attorneys has the firepower to aggressively defend your charges in a military court. They are some of the best in the field of military sexual assault defense. Our hard-hitting military defense lawyers have decades of sex crime defense experience. If you or a loved one has been accused of a sexual offense such as Indecent Viewing, then act now! Our seasoned civilian defense attorneys will aggressively defend you.

YouTube video

A sex crime is an offense that takes place when someone sexually violates or pushes an unwanted sexual encounter through psychological and physical manipulation. 

We have successfully defended and acquitted service members worldwide. Check out our military law case results to learn more.

The hard-hitting criminal defense attorneys at Gonzalez & Waddington have gained a reputation for defending Soldiers at US military installations across the globe, such as Sicily. If you are under investigation for a military crime, having the most experienced military criminal defense attorney can be the difference between having your rights trampled versus winning your case or saving your career. Our criminal defense attorneys represent military service members in criminal and administrative matters, including defending Marines accused of sexual assault, theft, and other offenses under the UCMJ.

YouTube video

The Maximum Punishment for Indecent Viewing, Article 120c, UCMJ is:

  • Dishonorable Discharge
  • Total Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
  • Confinement for 1 year
  • Reduction to the grade of E-1

The Maximum Punishment for Indecent Recording, Article 120c, UCMJ is:

  • Dishonorable Discharge
  • Total Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
  • Confinement for 5 years
  • Reduction to the grade of E-1

The Maximum Punishment for Broadcasting or Distributing of an Indecent Recording, Article 120c, UCMJ is:

  • Dishonorable Discharge
  • Total Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
  • Confinement for 7 years
  • Reduction to the grade of E-1

YouTube video

Military sex crimes include:

Sample Specification for Indecent Viewing:

In that Colonel Rick Blicky, US Marine Corps, did at or near Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on or about May 3, 2022, without legal justification or lawful authorization, knowingly and wrongfully view the private area of Suzie Snelly, without her consent and under circumstances in which (he) (she) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sample Specification for Indecent Recording:

In that PO1 Steve Smithy, US Navy, did at or near Navy Base San Diego, California, on or about September 9, 2023, without legal justification or lawful authorization, knowingly make a recording of the private area of Chrissy Cartwright, without her consent and under circumstances in which (he) (she) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sample Specification for Broadcasting or Distributing of an Indecent Recording:

In that Lt Col Scotty Skippy, US Air Force, did at or near Scott Air Force Base, IL, on or about November 1, 2021, without legal justification or lawful authorization knowingly (broadcast) (distribute) a recording of the private area of Carl Critterly, when the said accused knew or reasonably should have known that the said recording was made without the consent of Carl Critterly and under circumstances in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Elements of Indecent Viewing:

Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused, without legal justification or lawful authorization, knowingly (and wrongfully) viewed the private area of (state the name of the alleged victim);
(2) That the accused did so without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim); and
(3) That said viewing took place under circumstances in which (state the name of the alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Elements of Indecent Recording:

Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused, without legal justification or lawful authorization, knowingly (photographed) (videotaped) (filmed) (made a recording of) the private area of (state the name of the alleged victim);
(2) That the accused did so without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim); and
(3) That said recording was made under circumstances in which (state the name of the alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Elements of Broadcasting or Distributing of an Indecent Recording:

Each element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused, without legal justification or lawful authorization, knowingly (broadcast) (distributed) a recording of the private area of (state the name of the alleged victim);
(2) That the recording was made without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim);
(3) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was made without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim);
(4) That the recording was made under circumstances in which (state the name of the alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
(5) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was made under circumstances in which (state the name of the alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Definitions and Other Instructions for Indecent Viewing, Visual Recording, Broadcasting or Distributing of an Indecent Recording, Article 120c, UCMJ:

“Wrongful” means without legal justification or lawful authorization.

An act is done “knowingly” when it is done intentionally and on purpose. An act done as the result of a mistake or accident is not done “knowingly.”

“Private area” means the naked or underwear-clad genitalia, anus, buttocks, or female areola or nipple.

“Under circumstances in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” or “reasonable expectation of privacy” means:

(A) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the person was being captured; or

(B) circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of the person would not be visible to the public.

“Broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons.)

“Distribute” means delivering to the actual or constructive possession of another, including transmission by electronic means.)

“Recording” means a still or moving visual image captured or recorded by any means.)

NOTE 1: Mistake of fact as to consent.
When the accused is charged with indecent viewing or recording, and the evidence has reasonably raised mistake of fact as to consent, include the following instruction on honest and reasonable mistake of fact as to consent. If instructing on an attempted offense, only the honest mistake of fact instruction should be given.

The evidence has raised the issue of mistake on the part of the accused whether (state the name of the alleged victim) consented to the conduct concerning the offense(s) of indecent (viewing) (visual recording), as alleged in (the) Specification(s) (___) of (the) (Additional) Charge (___).

Mistake of fact as to consent is a defense to (that) (those) charged offense(s). “Mistake of fact as to consent” means the accused held, as a result of ignorance or mistake, an incorrect belief that the other person consented to the (viewing) (photographing) (videotaping) (filming) (visual recording). The ignorance or mistake must have existed in the mind of the accused and must have been reasonable under all the circumstances. To be reasonable the ignorance or mistake must have been based on information, or lack of it, that would indicate to a reasonable person that the other person consented. (Additionally, the ignorance or mistake cannot be based on the negligent failure to discover the true facts.

“Negligence” is the absence of due care. “Due care” is what a reasonably careful person would do under the same or similar circumstances.)The prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the mistake of fact as to consent did not exist. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, at the time of the charged offense(s), the accused was not under a mistaken belief that the alleged victim consented to the (viewing) (photographing) (videotaping) (filming) (visual recording), the defense does not exist. Even if you conclude the accused was under a mistaken belief that the alleged victim consented to the (viewing) (photographing) (videotaping) (filming) (visual recording), if you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the charged offense(s), the accused’s mistake was unreasonable, the defense does not exist.

NOTE 2: Voluntary intoxication and mistake of fact as to consent.
If there is evidence of the accused’s voluntary intoxication, the following instruction is appropriate:
There has been some evidence concerning the accused’s state of intoxication at the time of the alleged offense. On the question of whether the accused’s mistaken belief, if any, was reasonable, you may not consider the accused’s intoxication because a reasonable belief is one that an ordinary, prudent, sober adult would have under the circumstances of this case. Voluntary intoxication does not permit what would be an unreasonable belief in the mind of a sober person to be considered reasonable because the person is intoxicated.

NOTE 3: Voluntary intoxication and “knew or reasonably should have known.”
When the accused is charged with broadcasting or distributing an indecent visual recording, and there is evidence that the accused was intoxicated, the following instruction may be appropriate with respect to whether the accused “knew or reasonably should have known” the circumstances under which the recording was made.
The evidence has raised the issue of voluntary intoxication in relation to the offense(s) of (state the alleged offense(s)). With respect to (that) (those) offense(s), I advised you earlier that the government is required to prove that the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was made without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim), and that the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was made under circumstances in which (state the name of the alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In deciding whether the accused had such knowledge, you should consider the evidence of voluntary intoxication.

The law recognizes that a person’s ordinary thought process may be materially affected when (he) (she) is under the influence of intoxicants. Thus, evidence that the accused was intoxicated may, either alone or together with other evidence in the case, cause you to have a reasonable doubt that the accused had the required knowledge.

On the other hand, the fact that the accused may have been intoxicated at the time of the offense(s) does not necessarily indicate that (he) (she) was unable to have the required knowledge because a person may be drunk yet still be aware at that time of (his) (her) actions and their probable results.

In deciding whether the accused had the required knowledge, you should consider the effect of intoxication, if any, as well as the other evidence in the case.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. If you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused in fact had the required knowledge, the accused will not avoid criminal responsibility because of voluntary intoxication.

However, on the question of whether the accused “reasonably should have known” that the recording was made without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim), and the question of whether the accused “reasonably should have known” that the recording was made under circumstances in which (state the name of the alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy, you may not consider the accused’s intoxication, if any, because what a person reasonably should have known refers to what an ordinary, prudent, sober adult would have reasonably known under the circumstances of this case.

In summary, voluntary intoxication should be considered in determining whether the accused had actual knowledge that the recording was made without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim), and under circumstances in which (state the name of alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Voluntary intoxication should not be considered in determining whether the accused “reasonably should have known” that the recording was made without the consent of (state the name of the alleged victim), and under circumstances in which (state the name of alleged victim) had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Indecent Recording Military Lawyers

Our firm’s founding attorneys, Michael Waddington and Alexandra Gonzalez-Waddington, graduated from Temple University School of Law in Philadelphia, PA. In addition, Mr. Waddington is a member of the American Board of Criminal Lawyers. The ABCL is known as one of the most esteemed legal groups comprised of some of the USA’s most respected criminal defense attorneys. Entry is by invitation only and is limited to extremely regarded defense attorneys with ten or more years of experience defending criminal cases. In addition, they must have defended 50 or more felony cases during this time and must have won 35 or more jury trials.

Furthermore, Michael Waddington was voted a “Super Lawyer” in Georgia and is rated Superb on AVVO.com. A few of Michael Waddington’s cases were made into documentary films, such as “Taxi to the Dark Side.” He also regularly instructs defense lawyers on criminal defense.
Our aggressive court-martial defense attorneys will use our knowledge to defend your court-martial or ADSEP case.

Call today to consult with an aggressive military criminal defense attorneys.

Military personnel deserve the best court-martial defense lawyers available to defend them at their court-martial or administrative separation (ADSEP) proceeding.

Military Sex Crimes, Penalties, & Legal Defenses

Our seasoned court-martial defense attorneys and their results set us apart from less aggressive attorneys.

If you or a loved one are facing a court-martial for a military sexual assault or if you are facing an administrative discharge, Article 15, show cause board, letter of reprimand, then contact our defense attorneys right away.

Indecent Recording – Sexual Behavior in the Military

Military statutes include numerous sex-related crimes. Military laws try to capture every possible human activity related to sexual misbehavior and deviance. However, military sex crimes can be divided into rape, aggravated sexual assault, abusive sexual contact, child sex crimes, obscenity, and child pornography offenses.

Our seasoned criminal defense attorneys and their victories set us apart from less experienced attorneys.

If you or a family member are accused of a military Article 120 UCMJ crime or if you are facing an administrative discharge, Article 15, show cause board, letter of reprimand, then reach out to our criminal defense lawyers immediately.

The suspected service member and his or her future is our main concern. Our military criminal defense attorneys maintain lighter caseloads than the typical free military attorney so that we can concentrate on each case individually. Your case will not be outsourced to a random attorney, and we will not intimidate you into a guilty plea at the last minute. Our military defense lawyers have contested US Army court-martial and ADSEP cases in the United States and worldwide.

Indecent Recording defense attorneys

Scroll to Top