Unlawful Command Influence? The Controversy of Jury Tampering in Military Sexual Assault Trials
The military justice system is designed to be fair, impartial, and just — especially in sensitive cases such as sexual assault court-martials. However, recent trends have raised substantial concerns about potential jury tampering and unlawful command influence within these trials. Veteran court martial attorneys Michael Waddington and Timothy Bilecki recently shed light on disturbing practices that may be compromising the integrity of military juries before sexual assault cases are even heard.
Introduction: When Justice Is Pre-Determined?
Imagine being a juror in a military sexual assault case and being shown a commanding general’s video before the trial even begins—a video that outlines victim behavior and potentially biases your view before hearing any evidence. This scenario is no longer hypothetical. Attorneys Waddington and Bilecki reveal that military commanders are increasingly using such tactics, raising questions about fairness and impartiality in military courts.
Military Command Videos: The New Jury Influence Tool?
In a recent court-martial, panel members were required to watch a 30-minute video produced by the commanding general of the installation. This video, purportedly educational, addressed what it termed “victim behavior” and “perpetrator behavior” in sexual assault cases. According to the attorneys, many of the statistics and statements in the video were inaccurate and appeared designed to influence jurors’ perceptions before the trial commenced.
Such videos have reportedly been shown worldwide at military installations, often scripted by prosecution teams including Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARCs) and Judge Advocate offices. Prosecutors sometimes even appear in these videos, blurring the lines between education and advocacy.
Unlawful Command Influence: A Legal and Ethical Concern
Unlawful command influence (UCI) occurs when commanding officers use their power to sway judicial outcomes, compromising the independence of the military justice process. Despite a military judge ruling that the described video did not constitute UCI in the discussed case, the attorneys highlight worrying evidence that jurors had already been swayed.
For example, some jurors indicated they would not consider prior inconsistent statements or lies from alleged victims as a factor in assessing credibility—contradicting established military law. This raises a critical question: can jurors truly be impartial if conditioned beforehand to view certain behaviors as sacrosanct or exempt from typical judicial scrutiny?
Conflicting Messages and the Jury’s Role
One of the most troubling aspects discussed is the contradictory messaging that jurors receive. On the one hand, the law requires jurors to consider inconsistencies and lies when weighing credibility. On the other, the videos assert that victims may change their stories and that this behavior should not diminish their credibility.
Attorney Waddington points out how this “counterintuitive victim behavior” stance creates a no-win situation for defense counsel. Jurors are caught between common sense—where truth is consistent—and the narrative that any inconsistency is still proof of victimhood.
Voir Dire: The Crucial Frontline in Jury Selection
Given these challenges, voir dire—the process of questioning prospective jurors—is more important than ever. Attorneys must identify and remove jurors who have been unduly influenced or who hold biased beliefs that undermine fair adjudication.
Waddington and Bilecki emphasize the importance of thorough jury vetting. They recount instances of panel members who openly admitted to believing that a single drink negates the possibility of consent—a belief that, if left unchecked, could doom a defendant regardless of the facts.
Effective defense strategies now rely heavily on educating jurors on the law and dismantling misinformation implanted by these videos. However, the process becomes a difficult uphill battle when misinformation is presented authoritatively by senior commanders and enshrined in mandatory pre-trial briefings.
The Pressure to Convict: A Systemic Issue?
The attorneys also shed light on the broader institutional pressures influencing these developments. Senior leadership faces immense scrutiny and urgency to demonstrate a strong stance against sexual assault. This pressure, while well-intentioned, may lead to overzealous prosecution and a rush to conviction, sometimes at the expense of due process.
Cases are reportedly being pushed to trial even when evidence is weak or accusations are potentially false. The frustration from multiple acquittals or exonerations further fuels attempts to “stack the deck” through jury conditioning, creating a vicious cycle that threatens the fairness of the military justice system.
Additional Context: The Complexity of Military Sexual Assault Cases
Military sexual assault cases are inherently complex due to unique factors such as command hierarchy, the close-knit nature of military communities, and the dual roles of commanders as both leaders and judicial influencers.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and recent reforms have sought to improve the handling of sexual assault cases, but challenges remain. The balance between protecting victims and ensuring the accused’s rights is delicate. Tactics that compromise jury impartiality undermine this balance and risk eroding trust in the military justice system.
Conclusion: Safeguarding Fairness in Military Justice
The revelations shared by attorneys Waddington and Bilecki expose troubling trends that threaten the foundational principles of fairness and impartiality in military sexual assault trials. Mandatory pre-trial videos and commanding officers’ involvement in jury education may cross ethical and legal boundaries, risking unlawful command influence and jury tampering.
Moving forward, it is imperative for the military justice system to critically evaluate these practices. Transparency, rigorous jury selection, and adherence to legal standards must be prioritized to ensure every service member receives a fair trial. Only by restoring balance can the military justice system maintain credibility and justice for all involved.
For those interested in learning more about military sexual assault defense or concerns about unlawful command influence, resources and expert legal representation are available through experienced court martial attorneys like Michael Waddington and Timothy Bilecki.
Further Reading & Resources
- Michael Waddington’s UCMJ Defense
- Attorney Profile on Avvo
- Michael Waddington – Wikipedia
- Facebook – Court Martial Attorney
- YouTube – Court Martial Lawyers Channel
- Military Sexual Assault Defense