Answer First

If investigators never interview your witnesses, it does not stop them from closing the investigation or taking action, but it seriously undermines the fairness and reliability of the case and can be challenged.

This matters in the military justice system because CID, NCIS, OSI, and CGIS investigations often become the sole factual record relied on by commanders and legal offices when deciding NJP, administrative separation, Boards of Inquiry, or court-martial referral, and missing defense witnesses can distort the narrative permanently. Gonzalez & Waddington intervene early to force accountability, preserve defense evidence, and prevent one-sided investigations from quietly ending careers.

Go a Click Deeper

Military investigators are not legally required to interview every witness you identify, but they are expected to conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation. In practice, investigators often prioritize accuser-aligned witnesses, close the file once they believe probable cause exists, or decline defense witnesses they view as inconvenient, cumulative, or contradictory to their theory.

• Investigators decide which witnesses they believe are relevant.
• Defense witnesses are often labeled biased or unnecessary.
• Once investigators believe the case is “sufficient,” they may stop interviewing.
• Uninterviewed witnesses are excluded from investigative summaries.
• Commands may never learn favorable facts if they are not documented.
• Failure to interview witnesses can skew credibility assessments.
• Early intervention can force reconsideration of witness scope.

When Legal Guidance Matters Most

The risk is highest when investigators close an investigation without ever hearing from witnesses who contradict the allegation or provide critical context. Once the report is finalized, commands often treat the absence of defense witnesses as proof they did not exist or were not credible. Gonzalez & Waddington represent service members worldwide when investigations ignore defense witnesses, ensuring that missing evidence is preserved and that investigative omissions are exposed before decisions are made.

Real-World Patterns We See

In our experience defending service members across all branches, failure to interview defense witnesses is one of the most common and damaging investigative omissions. A recurring pattern is investigators closing the case quickly after securing statements that support their initial theory.

• Investigators say defense witnesses are “not necessary.”
• Witness lists are ignored or only partially reviewed.
• Contradictory accounts are excluded from summaries.
• Investigations rely heavily on hearsay.
• Commands assume missing witnesses would not help.
• Early defense advocacy would have changed scope.

Aggressive Military Defense Lawyers: Gonzalez & Waddington

Watch the military defense lawyers at Gonzalez & Waddington break down how they defend service members worldwide against UCMJ allegations, CID/NCIS/OSI investigations, court-martials, Article 120 cases, administrative separations, and GOMORs. If you’re under investigation or facing adverse action, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced civilian military counsel can make the difference.

How Gonzalez & Waddington Helps

When investigators ignore defense witnesses, the only way to correct the imbalance is through proactive legal advocacy. Gonzalez & Waddington treat missing witness interviews as a critical flaw and move quickly to preserve testimony and expose investigative bias.

• Documenting witness availability and relevance.
• Preserving written statements or affidavits from uncontacted witnesses.
• Challenging investigative completeness and good-faith effort.
• Forcing commands to consider omitted evidence.
• Preparing rebuttals highlighting investigative omissions.
• Introducing missing witness testimony at boards or hearings.
• Undermining credibility of one-sided investigations.
• Protecting against separation or court-martial based on incomplete records.

Comparison Table

Pro Tips

• Provide witness names early and in writing.
• Do not assume investigators will follow up.
• Preserve witness contact information.
• Document attempts to provide witnesses.
• Early legal advocacy changes investigation scope.

Common Issues We See

• Defense witnesses are never contacted.
• Investigations close prematurely.
• Commands rely on incomplete records.
• Hearsay replaces firsthand testimony.
• Careers end without full fact-finding.

FAQ

Are investigators required to interview my witnesses?

No, but failure to do so can undermine fairness. Gonzalez & Waddington challenge incomplete investigations.

Can I submit witness statements myself?

Yes, through counsel. Gonzalez & Waddington ensure statements are preserved properly.

Does this affect separation or BOI decisions?

Yes, missing witness evidence often drives adverse outcomes. Gonzalez & Waddington expose omissions.

Can this be raised later at a board or trial?

Yes, investigative omissions can be highlighted. Gonzalez & Waddington prepare these challenges.

Does this apply overseas?

Yes, the same issues arise worldwide. Gonzalez & Waddington represent service members globally.

Bottom Line

If investigators never interview your witnesses, the investigation is incomplete and potentially unfair, but that omission will not stop command action unless it is challenged. The safest course is to document witness availability, preserve testimony, and involve experienced civilian military defense counsel immediately. Military justice systems rely heavily on written investigative records, and missing witnesses often become invisible unless defended aggressively. Gonzalez & Waddington represent service members worldwide in serious military investigations and can be reached at 1-800-921-8607 to protect your career before investigative omissions become permanent conclusions.