Revenge of the Ex-Wives: U.S. v. Air Force E-8 – Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska
Original Allegations: Article 120 Rape/Sexual Assault – Four Alleged Victims
Maximum Punishment: LIFE in prison, Dishonorable Discharge, Sex offender registration, Loss of Retirement
Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
Sentence: NONE
Discharge: NONE
Location / Branch / Rank: Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, NE / Air Force / E-8
Case Summary
Our client was a 24-year Air Force veteran standing on the doorstep of retirement. A single complaint from a woman he had dated put him squarely in the crosshairs of Air Force OSI. That initial charge was eventually dropped, but OSI did not close the investigation. Instead, investigators broadened their reach, contacting ex-wives, former girlfriends, and other women from the client’s past in an effort to build a larger case against him.
What happened next illustrates a pattern that experienced military defense attorneys have seen from OSI, CID, NCIS, and CGIS alike: investigators told these women that our client was a rapist and asked for their help to “get the rapist off the street.” That framing is not neutral. It plants a conclusion before any testimony has been gathered, and it can powerfully distort how a person remembers — or misremembers — events from years or even decades earlier.
How OSI Built the Case Against Him
OSI investigators made repeated phone calls to the client’s ex-wives. According to what was later developed at trial, those contacts involved telling the women that they had been victimized, even when the women themselves had not initiated any complaint. Some of these women, when pressed, recalled consensual late-night sexual encounters or intimate moments after a night out — events they had not previously characterized as anything other than consensual. Through repeated contact and leading questioning, OSI persuaded several of them that what they had experienced was, in fact, rape.
The result was a charging document listing multiple women as alleged sexual assault victims. Each additional alleged victim multiplied the potential punishment our client faced and made the case appear far more damning to any future panel. It also put the defense in the difficult position of fighting a multi-victim case while simultaneously challenging the process by which those “victims” were identified and recruited.
A Case Others Said Could Not Be Won
By the time our client sought help from Michael Waddington, he had already been represented by another civilian defense lawyer and a military-appointed ADC. He had been told he had no realistic chance of winning. Facing life in prison and the loss of a 24-year career and retirement, he made the decision to release his prior legal team and bring Mr. Waddington on board as lead civilian defense counsel.
Taking over a case mid-stream is always challenging. Decisions made early in an investigation and at the Article 32 preliminary hearing stage can shape what evidence is available later. Mr. Waddington and his ADC co-counsel had to assess what had been done, identify what still could be done, and build a coherent defense strategy for trial.
Alleged Victims Begin to Fall Away
As the defense dug into the facts — examining the circumstances of each allegation, the nature of OSI’s contact with each woman, the timeline of each relationship, and the specific details each woman had provided — the case against our client began to weaken. One by one, alleged victims withdrew from the case or their accounts became impossible to sustain.
By the time the case reached trial, two of the original four alleged victims remained. That alone represented a significant shift. But two accusers still meant the client faced serious charges, a panel of officers, and the possibility of spending the rest of his life in a federal military prison.
The Trial: Challenging Tainted Memories and Improper Interview Techniques
The defense strategy at trial had two primary tracks: put our client on the stand to tell his side of the story, and use expert testimony to explain to the panel exactly how memory works — and how it can be corrupted.
The defense called forensic psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Younggren, a nationally recognized expert in the psychology of memory, false memory, and the influence of suggestion on eyewitness and victim accounts. Dr. Younggren explained to the officer panel that human memory is not a video recording. It is reconstructive. Each time a person recalls an event, that memory can be subtly altered by new information, by leading questions, by emotional pressure, and by the framing provided by other people — including investigators.
In a case where OSI agents had told potential witnesses that they were rape victims before those witnesses had made any such claim themselves, Dr. Younggren’s testimony was directly on point. The panel heard a credible, scientifically grounded explanation for why women who had originally viewed their encounters with our client as consensual might later genuinely believe — and sincerely report — that those encounters were not.
On cross-examination of each of the two remaining alleged victims, the defense methodically worked through the inconsistencies, timeline gaps, and suggestive interview techniques that had shaped their accounts. Rather than attacking these women as liars, the defense framed their testimony in the context of what the science shows about memory contamination — a far more powerful approach before a panel of senior Air Force officers.
The Verdict
The officer panel deliberated for more than four hours before returning a verdict of not guilty on all charges. Our client — a man who had been told he could not win, who had faced the possibility of dying in a military prison, and who had watched 24 years of honorable service hang in the balance — walked out of that courtroom without a conviction, without a sentence, and without a discharge.
Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
After the verdict, Mr. Waddington and the defense team celebrated with a dinner at The Boiler Room in Omaha’s Market District — a fitting close to one of the most demanding cases the team had faced.
What This Case Means for Accused Service Members
This case carries several important lessons for any service member who finds themselves under investigation for sexual assault under Article 120 of the UCMJ.
Investigators Can and Do Seek Out Additional Accusers
Military criminal investigators are not passive. When they believe someone committed a crime, they may actively contact people from that person’s past — including ex-spouses and former partners — to find corroborating accounts. Understanding this tactic is important because it changes the nature of the case. What begins as one person’s complaint can become a multi-victim prosecution through investigative outreach alone.
Memory Science Is a Legitimate and Powerful Defense Tool
Expert testimony from qualified forensic psychologists can explain to a jury or officer panel how improper interview techniques, leading questions, and suggestive framing can produce sincere but inaccurate testimony. This is not about calling witnesses liars. It is about explaining, with scientific support, how honest people can come to believe things that did not happen the way they recall.
The Quality of Your Defense Lawyer Matters Enormously
Our client’s first legal team told him he had no chance of winning. He hired Mr. Waddington anyway. The outcome speaks for itself. If you are facing Article 120 charges, the experience, preparation, and strategy of your Article 120 lawyer can be the difference between life in prison and walking free. Do not accept a plea, do not make statements to investigators, and do not assume that a case is unwinnable until you have spoken with an experienced civilian military defense lawyer who has actually tried these cases.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can military investigators contact my ex-spouse or former partners to build a sexual assault case against me?
Yes. Military criminal investigative organizations — including OSI, CID, NCIS, and CGIS — have broad authority to identify and interview potential witnesses, including people from an accused service member’s personal and romantic history. There is no rule that prevents investigators from reaching out to ex-spouses or former partners. In fact, as this case demonstrates, investigators sometimes actively solicit new complainants by telling potential witnesses that the accused has been accused of rape and asking for their assistance. This tactic can turn a single-complainant investigation into a multi-victim prosecution. Knowing this is possible is one reason why retaining experienced legal counsel as early as possible — before charges are even preferred — is so important.
What is memory contamination and how can it affect a military sexual assault case?
Memory contamination refers to the process by which a person’s recollection of an event is altered or distorted by information they receive after that event. Research in forensic psychology has established that memory is reconstructive rather than fixed — it can be influenced by leading questions, repeated interviews, emotional pressure, and the suggestions of authority figures like investigators. In a military sexual assault case, if an investigator tells a potential witness that she was raped before asking her to describe what she remembers, that framing can color everything she then recalls. A qualified forensic psychologist, such as Dr. Jeffrey Younggren who testified in this case, can explain this science to an officer panel and give context to why a witness may sincerely believe something that the evidence does not support.
What should I do if I am a service member accused of rape or sexual assault under Article 120 of the UCMJ?
The most important steps are straightforward but critical. First, do not make any statement to investigators — not to OSI, CID, NCIS, CGIS, or your chain of command — without first speaking to a defense attorney. Anything you say can and will be used against you. Second, do not contact, communicate with, or attempt to influence any person who may be an alleged victim or witness. Third, contact an experienced Article 120 defense lawyer as soon as possible. The earlier you have qualified legal representation, the more options your defense team has to investigate the facts, challenge the investigation process, and prepare a strategy for your case. Military-appointed defense counsel provide an important baseline of representation, but in complex, high-stakes cases like this one, a civilian defense attorney with specific Article 120 trial experience can make a decisive difference.