Victims’ Rights, Special Victims’ Counsel, and What the Accused Should Know
Key takeaways
- Article 6b, added by the 2014 NDAA after LRM v. Kastenberg, mirrors the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act and applies to anyone who suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm from a UCMJ offense.
- Victims of sex-related offenses (Articles 120, 120a, 120b, 120c, and attempts) are entitled to a Special Victims’ Counsel under 10 U.S.C. § 1044e — an independent attorney representing the victim’s interests, not the prosecution’s.
- Article 6b(e) lets a victim petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus when rulings under M.R.E. 412, 513, 514, or 615 allegedly violate their rights — enforcement with teeth.
- Defense interviews of a represented victim must be requested through the victim’s counsel, and the victim may insist on counsel’s presence. Art. 6b(f).
- Victims may be heard at presentencing by sworn or unsworn statement — and an unsworn victim statement is not evidence and cannot be cross-examined.
The Article 6b rights catalog
Congress rebuilt the victim’s position in military justice in a single decade. After the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) set the model, and after CAAF’s decision in LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2013) recognized a victim’s right to be heard through counsel, the 2014 NDAA wrote the rights directly into the code as Article 6b. A “victim” is anyone who suffered direct physical, emotional, or pecuniary harm from a UCMJ offense; guardians and representatives step in for minors and incapacitated victims. Art. 6b(b)–(c).
The catalog, closely tracking the CVRA:
- the right to be reasonably protected from the accused;
- reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of pretrial confinement hearings, the Article 32 preliminary hearing, the court-martial, clemency and parole proceedings, and the accused’s release or escape;
- the right not to be excluded from public proceedings, unless the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the victim’s testimony would be materially altered by hearing other testimony;
- the right to be reasonably heard at confinement, sentencing, and clemency and parole proceedings;
- the reasonable right to confer with government counsel;
- the right to restitution as provided in law;
- proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and
- treatment with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy.
Army regulation adds notice-and-consultation machinery on top: victims are consulted on decisions not to prefer, pretrial restraint, dismissal, and plea negotiations — though the victim’s preference is considered, not controlling; disposition remains the command’s call. AR 27-10, ch. 17; Art. 6b(d). Since the MJA 2016, these rights extend even into the summary court-martial.
Special Victims’ Counsel: who gets one and what they do
The Special Victims’ Counsel (Army/Air Force) or Victims’ Legal Counsel (Navy/Marine Corps) program, created by 10 U.S.C. § 1044e, provides victims of sex-related offenses — Articles 120, 120a, 120b, 120c, and Article 80 attempts — with their own military attorney, free of charge. Eligible victims must be told of the right to consult an SVC before being interviewed by investigators, trial counsel, or victim advocates, and may decline representation.
The SVC is neither prosecutor nor advocate-counselor. The attorney-client relationship is real and privileged (M.R.E. 502), and the SVC’s duty runs to the victim’s interests — which sometimes align with the government’s and sometimes sharply do not. SVCs advise on reporting options, accompany the client to interviews, assert privileges, litigate M.R.E. 412 and M.R.E. 513 issues, advocate on expedited transfers and retaliation complaints, and speak for the client on pleas, dispositions, and at presentencing.
Standing and enforcement: writs under Article 6b(e)
What separates Article 6b from aspirational victim-rights statements is its enforcement clause. If a victim believes a ruling by the military judge or the Article 32 preliminary hearing officer violates rights under M.R.E. 412, 513, 514, or 615 — or orders the victim into a deposition — the victim may petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus, with priority handling. Art. 6b(e). This is CVRA-style enforcement transplanted into courts-martial, and it operates even before referral.
The doctrinal foundation is LRM v. Kastenberg, where CAAF held:
“a reasonable opportunity to be heard at a hearing includes the right to present facts and legal argument, and that a victim or patient who is represented by counsel be heard through counsel.”LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2013)
The appellate boundaries have their own case law: CAAF initially held Article 6b writs ended at the CCA (EV v. United States, 75 M.J. 331 (C.A.A.F. 2016)), and that the accused could not appeal a victim’s writ win either (Randolph v. HV, No. 16-0678 (C.A.A.F. 2017)) — before the 2018 NDAA amended Article 6b to give CAAF priority review of CCA writ decisions. And the writ has limits: it requires an actual ruling — a pre-preferral discovery dispute does not qualify (AG v. Hargis, 77 M.J. 501 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2017)), and the right not to be excluded is not a right to the parties’ filings (A.M. v. United States (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. 2017)).
How victim counsel participates in the case
| Stage | Victim’s right / counsel’s role | Key authority |
|---|---|---|
| Investigation | SVC consultation before interviews; counsel present at law-enforcement interviews | 10 U.S.C. § 1044e; AR 27-10 |
| Defense interviews | Requests go through the victim’s counsel; victim may require counsel’s presence | Art. 6b(f); R.C.M. 701(e)(1) |
| Article 32 | Notice; presence; no obligation to testify; exclusion only during other victims’ M.R.E. 412/513/514 matters | R.C.M. 405(g), (h)(2)(A)(iii) |
| Motions practice | Standing to be heard through counsel on M.R.E. 412, 513, 514 privilege and exclusion issues | LRM; Art. 6b(e) |
| Pleas & disposition | Consultation on agreements; views considered by the convening authority; venue preference (court-martial vs. civilian) solicited | R.C.M. 705(c); R.C.M. 306(e) |
| Trial | Right to attend under M.R.E. 615(e) absent clear-and-convincing findings | M.R.E. 615 |
| Presentencing | Right to be reasonably heard — sworn or unsworn victim-impact statement; unsworn is not cross-examinable | R.C.M. 1001(c) |
| Post-trial | Copy of the record; matters submitted to the convening authority; clemency and parole input | Art. 54(e); R.C.M. 1106A |
Note the sentencing details, because they surprise accused members: after findings, the victim may make a statement limited to victim impact and mitigation — not a sentence recommendation — and an unsworn statement cannot be cross-examined, only rebutted. R.C.M. 1001(c); United States v. Hamilton (C.A.A.F. 2019) (a victim unsworn statement is not evidence). Post-trial, victims get one opportunity to submit matters to the convening authority, on a 10-day clock. R.C.M. 1106A.
Expedited transfer and retaliation protections
Outside the courtroom, two protective systems shape the landscape. Expedited transfer lets a Soldier who files an unrestricted sexual assault report request reassignment away from the alleged offender; Army policy presumes approval after a credible report, and the approval authority must act within 72 hours. AR 614-200, para. 5-18. Retaliation protections run on several tracks at once: the punitive retaliation offense of Article 132, UCMJ (adverse personnel action, or withholding favorable action, with intent to retaliate against or discourage a report or protected communication); whistleblower reprisal channels through the Inspector General (10 U.S.C. § 1034); cruelty and maltreatment under Article 93; and command-policy prohibitions on ostracism. AR 600-20, paras. 5-13, 7-11. Commanders reviewing administrative separations of members who reported sexual assault must screen for retaliation before approving them.
For the accused, these systems matter tactically: an expedited transfer, a retaliation complaint, or a Military Protective Order becomes part of the case’s factual terrain — sometimes corroborating the account, sometimes revealing motive, timing, and secondary-gain issues that a careful defense must understand but handle with restraint and precision.
What this means if you’re the accused in a case with victim counsel
Expect a third lawyer at every stage — and adjust. Your defense counsel cannot simply call the complaining witness for an interview; the request goes through the SVC, the interview may be conditioned and attended, and every question is a preview of your theory. Evidence you consider central may be fought by the SVC under M.R.E. 412 or 513 before a panel ever hears it, and an adverse privilege ruling can be writ-tested mid-case. None of this makes a defense impossible; it makes an unprepared defense impossible. Retain counsel who has litigated against SVCs and built cases that survive three-party motions practice — and do it at the investigation stage, when the record is still being made.
What this means for the defense
Let us be direct about the framing: victims’ rights are the law, most of them are sound policy, and disparaging them wins nothing in front of a panel. What the accused needs is not resentment but realism about how the rights change the litigation:
- Discovery narrows. Access to the complaining witness runs through counsel; early defense theories must be built from documents, digital evidence, and third-party witnesses. Our guide to Article 32 witnesses and victims covers what the preliminary hearing can and cannot compel — including the victim’s statutory right not to testify there.
- Privilege litigation is front-loaded. M.R.E. 412 and M.R.E. 513 motions now draw three briefs, in-camera procedures, and writ exposure. The defense must paper constitutional theories early and precisely.
- Dispositions have three audiences. Victim views are solicited on plea agreements and considered by the convening authority — deals are built to survive that input.
- Sentencing needs a rebuttal plan. Unsworn victim statements arrive without cross-examination; the answer is disciplined factual rebuttal and a mitigation case prepared with equal care.
- The OSTC changed the prosecutor too. Since 2023, covered offenses are charged by the independent Office of Special Trial Counsel rather than the command — one more professionalized counterpart across the aisle in sexual assault cases.
Practitioner’s note
In our practice, we treat the SVC as a permanent fixture of the case map, and we have learned that professionalism pays: interview requests routed correctly and framed narrowly get granted more often than fishing expeditions; 412 and 513 motions that respect the rules’ structure survive writ review better than kitchen-sink filings. We also read the victim-rights record for what it tells us — transfer requests, collateral-misconduct deferrals, and consultation notes are discoverable threads that sometimes matter at trial. The defense that understands Article 6b better than the government does is the defense that stops being surprised by it.
Video transcript
Transcript of the video “Air Force Special Victim Counsel: What Victims Need to Know,” from Gonzalez & Waddington.
Read the full transcript of this video
Afternoon this is tim bolecki with the military law news network i’m here with michael waddington today what i want to discuss is the concept of the svc the special victim council which is unique to air force sexual assault prosecutions and in particular how they are affecting trials and how they’re affecting perhaps even the outcomes of the case there’s been a pretty big case that just came out or is just going up before the appellate courts on this very issue uh so i’m going to turn it
Over to you mike to kind of explain what an svc is what you’re seeing out there and how this new case might be affecting the outcome of some trials okay really what an sdc is is basically another term for the victim’s lawyer you know in a court-martial you have the prosecutors now there’s usually at least two prosecutors in every sex assault case you have the chief of military justice who’s they’re also involved in prosecution you have the sj who’s part of the prosecution team he’s
Their he or she’s their supervisor so you have all these lawyers that represent the government trying to win the case well the air force over the past couple years had gotten complaints from some of these alleged victims saying that it’s not fair the defense is asking me really hard questions the prosecutor didn’t do a good enough job whatever and so the air force says hey let’s let’s add another layer of of lawyers to a court-martial football sex assault now what they did is they created
A program called the the sbc special victim council program where now the victim gets her own attorney who acts independently of the prosecution and the defense and now they’re interjected into the court-martial meaning that they can come in there and speak on uh certain matters they could argue and advocate for victims rights uh during the process and and really what the main thing that they get involved in is what’s called uh mre military rule of evidence 412 that is the what we call the rape
Shield statute now i’m going to go to you tim to explain what rule 412 is and why rule 412 is a key battleground in a court-martial well mike without going into too much legal detail on mre 412 but again as you said it’s a rape shield it’s the military rule of evidence of rape shield what it is designed to do is keep out past sexual the sexuality of an alleged victim her past sexual encounters it was essentially designed so defense lawyers can can come in
And say well she’s a [ __ ] she’s a [ __ ] she had it coming and there’s good reason for that but what’s happened now is it’s gotten it’s been rewritten so many times and it’s so strict that defense attorneys can’t bring out exculpatory evidence which could be out there and let me give you a really easy example if there was an alleged victim who had a boyfriend and she was having sex with her boyfriend and she had an ongoing relationship with her boyfriend but
Was met cheating on him with the accused your client and their boyfriend found out that she alleged rape this happens all the time it would seem like common sense that a defense attorney would be able to bring in the fact that she had a boyfriend it was a sexual relationship and that’s motive for her to fabricate the allegation but before we can even do that the law requires us to file a motion before the court to have the victims victims preferences be heard for her to
Testify this is where the svc comes in and then the court makes a determination under a couple different factors under mre 412 if it should be admitted or not now the problem we’re having with this type of evidence and there’s a whole host of things that could be mre 412 and there’s just a whole gamut of things that it could be i’m just using a simple example what happens now is that a prosecutor let’s see if say a prosecutor even agrees that this is relevant it’s
Constitutionally required a victim’s lawyer will now come in and she says nope i don’t want my past being put out there i don’t want them to know that i had a boyfriend that i was cheating on them on and then the special victim counsel files motions and comes before the court and they are trying to stop us from being able to use any of this evidence so it’s one more way where the defense doesn’t get a fair shake at the trial where all of the evidence
Doesn’t come before a jury and where juries can make try to make this can make decisions without knowing all of the facts and so that’s where we’re really seeing and there’s also something called emory 513 we’ll talk about that in a second but we’re seeing this interjection by another level of attorney of attorneys basically well those who represent the alleged victim trying to keep out frankly relevant evidence and sometimes exculpatory evidence and tim i’ll give you another real quick example then i’m going to get to
The case that’s that’s going on right now uh or actually the case that was just decided another type of evidence uh that would fall in under this category is let’s say that someone claims that they were sexually assaulted and they go to a rape examination a rape test kit is done and there there’s cuts uh abrasions redness in the the female’s vagina well the the investigators write that down as evidence that the girl was forcibly raped hey she has cuts there’s abrasions it’s red uh that
Means that she was forcibly raped which really doesn’t necessarily mean that but that’s what they would want at the show and then the defense finds out wait a minute she had sex that same mor that same day or like ten hours before with three different guys the injuries could have could have obviously come from the three other guys we then would have to present that evidence uh follow motion with the court and then the svc would then come in and argue why the fact that she
Had sex with three people is so embarrassing for her while you’re don’t forget your client’s life is on the line but it’s too embarrassing for her so it’s therefore should not be admitted because it’s going to be too embarrassing and going to make her feel really bad and it’s going to but what’s really happening is these sbcs in my experience are putting pressure on judges and in trying to basically come in and uh kind of you know intimidate the judges into um keeping this evidence out
Well what has what happened in a recent case in the air force was the judge said listen we you know you’re you’re we will consider what you have to say but you’re not a party to this court-martial you’re not the prosecutor you’re not the defense so you know you’re you’re uh we will consider what the victim wants or doesn’t want and i will consider that my decision but you’re not you’re not a lawyer that’s a party of this case and come in and file motions
Make arguments and things like that well the the appellate court disagreed uh the air force air force court of criminal pills and said you know what they are this this person now has standing this special victim counsel to interject themselves into the court-martial it really throughout the case if they want if if if if it’s necessary for them to try to defend their clients their vic the alleged victims rights protect her rights and things like that so they basically opened the door to these special
Victim councils being now a third party fighting against the accused in a court-martial and trying to limit his ability to get a fair trial yeah that’s kind of the gist of what’s going on right now it’s real interesting we couldn’t even imagine this in state court i mean imagine seeing a trial whether it’s almost do we set up a third table in the room to have her to have her rights protected and the big question that i’m asking myself is what does this ruling mean
Does that mean if we are doing a defense is doing a blistering cross-examination of the alleged victim exposing her for being a liar or exposing the fact that she is uh or he has serious credibility issues does that special victim council have a right to then object do they have a right to try to interject at that point in time and try to stop the trial or oppose the objections badgering and under this ruling i don’t although that’s not even that’s a tv objection that’s not
A real objection i could see something like that happening and then the judge is being told hey listen this guy’s the right to to interject himself into this court-martial we might as well just have the uh special victim counsel sitting up there in the judge’s chair and what’s the jury and then my question is what’s the jury think we did we did a previous episode how important it is to have an unbiased jury if they think that this individual this alleged victim is truly is
A victim that she she’s been so victimized that the air force gave her her own lawyer what’s the perception of that i mean i mean you have to look at it that way too are we going to set up a third table and then let one thing one thing people need to watch out for is these victims special victim advocates um or special victim councils have been also trying to keep out victims psychological records uh which can be hurtful to the defense because let’s say someone
Is a pathological liar or somebody uh has a lot of psychological baggage for example this happened in a recent case of mine where the girl allegedly was abused by multiple men growing up and she then took the stand was crying all emotional talking about how my client who who touched her leg ruined her life and destroyed her and gave her post-traumatic stress disorder and we were not allowed at that point in time um to bring up the fact that she was all emotionally fragile before she
Even met our client and so and then what ended up happening is they opened the door so we’re allowed to bring all this evidence in that she did have a bring in some evidence not all of it that she did allegedly have a history of being abused and it wasn’t our client that made her so fragile and destroyed her by touching her leg so lawyers and clients need to watch out and defendants need to watch out for the prosecutors trying to stop the past sexual behavior
From coming in and also the psychological history of the alleged victim from coming because that can make a difference one way or another whether or not your client goes to jail absolutely because at the end of the day you want to make sure that the jury gets all the facts and that they make the correct decision and what i’m seeing more and more and more in this war on sexual assault that all the military is waging they want to cherry pick certain facts and you used
Your great example of the girl who’s had her had her leg touched is says she was so traumatized by it they want to they want a jury to believe that your client is the one who traumatized her and your client uh did abc indeed to this girl but they want to make sure that they keep away from the jury the fact that she had all these other preconceived pre-existing issues um and then they want to blame all of these things that they know darn well the
Prosecutor knows that cannot be attributed to the accused they want to keep all of that away from the the jury which is cherry picking i think is fundamentally misleading to the try or fact all under the auspices of well it’s too embarrassing to the alleged victim it’s too uh her rights aren’t being protected well at the end of the day i’m not saying that she that they don’t have certain rights that need to be protected but when you weigh her right to being embarrassed by the
Fact that she had a gang bang a couple hours before or the fact that maybe something a little less uh that she was sexually assaulted as a as a minor whatever it happens to be when you weigh that against the fact that you have a service member who is could be incarcerated and made a a felony sex of be a convicted sex offender you need to make sure that all of that evidence can become before a jury properly so at the end they get a fair
Shake because you this is how we have wrongful convictions mike this is how innocent people get convicted is when prosecutors cherry pick evidence only certain parts that come before a jury and come before the trial and my concern is that this svp element is just going to have more and more of that hey tim i couldn’t agree more uh and in what we’ve been seeing in these cases i have not i’m not this issue was just decided so i have not seen an spc uh be
Able to interject himself him or herself into a case uh which now they’re allowed to do so i’m interested in watching how that comes forward and you know what i’m i think that the lawyer that if you’re defending someone accuses sexual assault the lawyer for the accused has to aggressively try to go after the the the rights of the or the the uh the impact and really the rights of this special victim council if they’re gonna come in and start showboating and trying to help put
Your client in jail then there’s a few things you can do aside from from standing up to them and trying to limit their their ability to speak and try to to hurt your client and one of the things is when you’re cross-examining the the victim and in your opening statement in your closing argument you can it’s now fair game to go over all the the fact that the victim has her own attorney that the victim refused to speak to the defense or or or her story
Only changed after her lawyer her own lawyer not the prosecutor sat down with her and coached her on her what a testimony should or should not be and so i think what you could do is expose and even point out uh without even saying it but when you’re talking about the sbc and how they’re coaching uh victims and telling them what to say and what not to say and telling them reminding them that if a victim says i don’t remember i have no recollection then then
She kind of shuts down the defense’s ability to cross-examine on that and expose uh what’s going on to the to the panel to the best your ability push the limits and and let them know that this victim this alleged victim isn’t um you know at the previous hearing she was very aggressive she wasn’t crying she was up in your face now the sudden her lawyers in the room her lawyer prepared her almost like an acting coach and prepared or what she shouldn’t say expose that to
The panel and that that’ll inflict some credibility damage on a on a on a bogus victim for sure i couldn’t agree with you more mike with this with svps the special victim prosecutors the svcs the onus really becomes on the defense attorney to expose all of this because if you are a novice defense attorney you don’t have the mental fortitude and the in the intestinal fortitude to take these people head on and expose them for what they really are the odds of a an accused going
To prison go they go up tremendously so it puts the burden more and more on guys like you might you and i and the defense bar in general to make sure that they are not timid that they don’t back down if they’re a captain and the svc is a major or a lieutenant colonel that they go take this head on and expose it for what it really is and i i always say this but i think juries see this and i think military juries do get
It as long as you do well in voidier they get it and this coaching it just doesn’t work you just have to expose it so it puts more burden on the defense which i’m glad i i completely agree with you and here’s an interesting something interesting that happened in a case i did about a month ago we chose to not interview the alleged victim before the trial we had her testimony at the Article 32 she didn’t have an spc at the Article 32 at the trial
She now had an attorney he sends out an email a real aggressive email like if you want to speak to my client you got to go through me then trying to bolster and puff his chest and so we’re like fine we don’t plan on talking her anyway and what what happened was he started getting freaked out we started getting all these emails when are you going to talk to her why don’t you want to talk to her am i missing something and the thing is he
Wanted us and she wanted us to sit down with her and basically the two of them with the alleged victim and her lawyer sitting there and asked her all the questions we’re going to ask her understand and we refuse to do it so what happened when we got into court i mean this is before the sbc’s had any real standing so he’s pretty much stuck but the but the alleged victim didn’t know because we had completely changed our game up from the Article 32 she didn’t
Know where we were going she she got stumped on a lot of a lot of the lies she was telling she looked terrible and she didn’t have a trial run so lawyers should be very careful defense lawyers should be very careful between talking too much to these sbcs if at all and also revealing their strategies to these svcs because don’t forget the svc is not even a prosecutor the svc works directly for the victim and if the victim wants your client in jail that spc will
Do whatever they can to ensure that your client goes to jail yeah mike you touched on a great controversial topic and it’s maybe outside the scope of this uh of this particular broadcast but it’s do we interview the victim the alleged victim in the case what a great topic but my take on this is if they have an svc or an svp everything i say to the alleged victim is going to go right back to the svp or the svc and my entire strategy is going
To be used so if i’m going to do something foolish like that i might as well write down my entire trial strategy put it in a nice binder and hand it to the prosecution because what happens is they spend the next week month prepping for everything that you’ve talked about now the interesting thing we’ve done before which always makes it good at trial i’ll interview a victim and talk to her about things i have no intent whatsoever of doing at trial i’ll lead them on path
A knowing i’m going to go down path b and the interesting thing about it is i can tell that they’re coached because when they do their direct testimony all their direct testimony is about trying to deal with everything that i’ve told them on my bogus plan a then we hit them with plan b at trial and they don’t see it coming they’re looking right and the bus is coming left they get run over and so that’s a strategy that we employ quite often but i see
Lawyer after lawyer after lawyer sit down with a special victim prosecutor the alleged victim’s paparazzi or her handlers and talk about everything that’s going on with the case and after they do that they meet with their handlers meet with the paparazzi meet with the prosecutor and now their story’s all changed and if you don’t expose that at trial your client’s going to go to jail and you had a hand in doing it so yeah what do you mean by the paparazzi i heard you mention that
I know what you’re talking about but please explain to the viewers when you say the victim’s paparazzi uh what are you talking about okay the victims alleged victims handlers and their paparazzi i see this at trial after trial after trial if you claim to be an alleged victim no matter how bogus the claim you are immediately coddled given a group of followers told hey i’ve got a shoulder to cry on you have two or three people that follow you everywhere you go hold your hand and
Tell you everything’s gonna be okay and that’s fine i guess in theory but the problem is they will tell you how to testify tell you how to answer the defense attorney’s questions coach you in lying coach you in deceiving and then tell you everything’s going to be okay and that they’re doing it for justice every time i go into one of these courts-martial mike two three four people all holding hands singing basically kumbaya they’re all gs 13 gs employees making 80 90 000 a year ginning
Up victims okay because we’ve talked about this before if there are no alleged victims they’re out of a job and they follow them around and say everything’s going to be okay what they also do mike is they sit in the court-martial watch all of the testimony and i’ve seen him go back to the alleged victim and tell her everything we’re doing and they change their testimony mid-trial i see it all the time they frustrate the hell out of me but that’s what it is if you
Want an instant paparazzi you want you want your instant 20 minutes of fame and your handlers uh alleged sexual assault in the military and you’ll you’ll have them in 20 minutes all right tim that’s about that’s a some interesting insight i completely agree with you on that um that wraps up this episode until next time.
Frequently asked questions
What rights does Article 6b give victims in a court-martial?
Eight core rights: reasonable protection from the accused; notice of confinement hearings, the Article 32, trial, and clemency proceedings; the right not to be excluded from public proceedings; the right to be reasonably heard at confinement, sentencing, and clemency stages; conference with government counsel; restitution; freedom from unreasonable delay; and treatment with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy.
Who gets a Special Victims' Counsel in the military?
Victims of sex-related offenses — generally Articles 120, 120a, 120b, and 120c and attempts — are entitled to a free, independent military attorney under 10 U.S.C. 1044e. Eligible victims must be told of the right before interviews by investigators or counsel, and may decline. The SVC represents the victim's interests, not the prosecution's.
Can the defense interview the alleged victim directly?
Not once counsel is involved. Under Article 6b(f), after the government signals it will call the victim, defense interview requests must go through the Special Victims' Counsel or other victim's counsel, and the victim can require that any interview happen only with government counsel, victim's counsel, or an advocate present.
Can a victim veto a plea deal or force charges in a court-martial?
No. Victims must be consulted on plea negotiations and their views considered by the convening authority, and they may express a preference between court-martial and civilian prosecution. But Article 6b expressly preserves the disposition discretion of commanders and, for covered offenses, the Office of Special Trial Counsel — the preference is considered, not controlling.
What can a victim do if a judge violates their rights?
Petition the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus under Article 6b(e) — available for rulings implicating M.R.E. 412, 513, 514, or 615, or orders compelling a deposition, with priority handling. Since the 2018 NDAA, CCA writ decisions get priority review at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Does the alleged victim testify at the Article 32 hearing?
Only by choice. A victim named in a specification is not required to testify at the preliminary hearing, and declining is now routine. The victim retains the rights to notice and presence, though they are excluded during evidence offered under M.R.E. 412, 513, or 514 on charges naming other victims.
About the attorneys behind this guide
Michael Waddington, Civilian Military Defense Lawyer
Michael Waddington has spent more than 25 years defending Article 120 and false-allegation cases — the docket where Special Victims’ Counsel practice was born and where it is litigated hardest. A former Army prosecutor and defense counsel and the author of trial advocacy texts on cross-examination, he has tried courts-martial against SVC-supported prosecutions worldwide, building defenses that respect the rules of three-party litigation while holding the government to its burden at every stage from the Article 32 forward.
Alexandra González-Waddington, Founding Partner
Alexandra González-Waddington, founding partner of Gonzalez & Waddington and author of this guide, has defended sexual assault, domestic violence, and war crimes cases for over 20 years — the full span of the victims’-rights era, from before Article 6b existed through today’s SVC and OSTC landscape. Her motions practice in M.R.E. 412 and 513 litigation, honed across hundreds of contested hearings, reflects the guide’s core lesson: the defense that masters the victim-rights framework is the one it cannot ambush.
Talk to a civilian court-martial defense lawyer today
Gonzalez & Waddington defends Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Guardians, and Coast Guardsmen worldwide — in UCMJ investigations, courts-martial, Article 15/NJP actions, GOMOR rebuttals, administrative separation boards, and Boards of Inquiry. We defend the whole case: the investigation, the trial, the administrative fallout, and the long-term consequences to your rank, retirement, clearance, and discharge.
Sources for this guide include the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the TJAGLCS Criminal Law Deskbook, and the cited decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the service Courts of Criminal Appeals. It is attorney advertising and general legal information — not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. Service procedures vary; Army references (AR 27-10) are noted where used.
Related: Fear of Abandonment: How a Malignant Borderline Traps You With Emotional Handcuffs