What Is the Burden of Proof in a Military Sexual Assault Case Under Article 120?
One of the most misunderstood aspects of military sexual assault cases is the burden of proof. Many service members believe that if they are charged, the government must already have strong evidence or that they must somehow prove their innocence. That belief is dangerous and wrong. The burden of proof in an Article 120 case always rests with the government, and understanding how that burden works is one of the most powerful tools a defense team can use to win. This page explains what the burden of proof really means in military sexual assault cases and how Gonzalez & Waddington uses it to dismantle prosecutions.
Short Answer
In an Article 120 case, the government must prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. You do not have to prove your innocence, explain what happened, or show that the accuser is lying. If the evidence leaves the panel with a reasonable doubt about any element of the charge, they must acquit. Many cases are won not by proving what happened, but by showing that the government cannot meet this extremely high standard.
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 charges, this video explains what your rights are and how experienced civilian military counsel can make the difference.
What “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” Really Means
The Highest Standard in the Law
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden of proof used in any legal system. It requires more than suspicion, probability, or belief. The panel must be firmly convinced that the accused committed the offense as charged. If there is a reasonable explanation consistent with innocence, the law requires acquittal.
Reasonable Doubt Is Not a Technicality
Reasonable doubt is not a loophole or trick. It is the core protection that prevents wrongful convictions. Doubt can arise from inconsistent testimony, lack of physical evidence, questionable motives, flawed investigations, or alternative explanations that fit the facts. Gonzalez & Waddington structures defenses to create and reinforce reasonable doubt at every stage of the trial.
The Accuser’s Belief Is Not Proof
An accuser can sincerely believe something happened and still be mistaken. Sincerity does not equal accuracy. The government must prove what actually occurred, not how someone feels about it later. When testimony is inconsistent or unsupported, reasonable doubt exists.
Panels Must Apply the Law, Not Sympathy
Military panels are instructed to decide cases based on evidence and law, not emotion or policy concerns. Prosecutors often appeal to sympathy or social pressure, but those arguments cannot replace proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A disciplined defense continually redirects the panel to its legal duty.
What the Government Must Prove in an Article 120 Case
Every Element Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The government must prove each element of the charged offense, including the specific sexual act, the absence of consent or presence of incapacity, the accused’s knowledge or intent, and any aggravating factors alleged. Failure to prove even one element requires acquittal.
Consent and Incapacity Are Central Issues
In many cases, the core dispute is consent. The government must prove that consent did not exist or that the accuser was legally incapable of consenting. Alcohol use, regret, or memory gaps do not automatically satisfy this burden. When evidence shows ambiguity or mutual participation, the burden is not met.
Credibility Must Be Reliable
When cases rely primarily on testimony, credibility becomes critical. Inconsistent statements, changing stories, delayed reporting, and motives to fabricate all undermine the government’s ability to meet its burden. Gonzalez & Waddington treats credibility as an element the government must effectively prove.
How Prosecutors Try to Shift the Burden Illegally
Implying the Accused Must Explain or Testify
Prosecutors sometimes subtly suggest that the accused should have explained themselves, testified, or “cleared things up.” This is improper. The accused has no obligation to speak. Silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt.
Arguing That Lack of Evidence Is “Normal”
The government often claims that sexual assault rarely leaves physical evidence and asks the panel to convict anyway. While this may be argued, it does not reduce the burden of proof. Absence of evidence still creates doubt, and Gonzalez & Waddington ensures the panel understands that gap.
Using Trauma Narratives to Excuse Proof Problems
Prosecutors frequently argue that trauma explains inconsistencies or missing evidence. These explanations do not replace proof. When trauma narratives are used to excuse every weakness, the burden of proof collapses into speculation, which the law does not allow.
How Gonzalez & Waddington Uses the Burden of Proof to Win
We Turn Every Weakness Into Reasonable Doubt
Our defense strategy does not chase absolute truth. It focuses on whether the government proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Every inconsistency, gap, assumption, and shortcut becomes a reason to acquit.
We Reframe the Case Around Proof, Not Stories
Instead of allowing the trial to become a morality play, we force the panel to evaluate evidence element by element. When prosecutors rely on narrative instead of proof, we expose that failure clearly.
We Educate Panels on Their Legal Responsibility
Many panel members have never served on a court-martial before. We use voir dire, cross-examination, and closing argument to remind them repeatedly that their role is not to guess, compromise, or “send a message,” but to apply the burden of proof faithfully.
We Prevent Burden Shifting
Whenever the government attempts to suggest that the defense must explain evidence or that the accused must disprove allegations, we object, confront, and correct the record. Protecting the burden of proof is one of the most important parts of an effective defense.
Burden of Proof Compared to Common Misconceptions
| Common Misconception | Actual Legal Standard |
|---|---|
| The accused must prove innocence | False. The government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Believing the accuser is enough | False. Credibility must be reliable and supported by evidence. |
| No evidence is normal in these cases | Even without physical evidence, the burden remains unchanged. |
| Trauma explains all inconsistencies | Explanations do not replace proof. |
Frequently Asked Questions About the Burden of Proof
Do I Have to Prove My Innocence?
No. You never have to prove innocence. The government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Can the Panel Convict If They Are Unsure?
No. Uncertainty equals reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt requires acquittal.
Does the Burden Change Because It Is a Sexual Assault Case?
No. The burden of proof is the same in every criminal case, regardless of the allegation.
What If the Panel Feels Pressure to Convict?
Pressure cannot replace proof. Gonzalez & Waddington confronts this issue directly and reminds panels of their legal duty.
How Does a Defense Lawyer Use Reasonable Doubt Effectively?
By identifying weaknesses, inconsistencies, and alternative explanations and weaving them into a clear narrative that shows the government failed to meet its burden.
The Bottom Line: The Burden of Proof Is Your Greatest Protection
The burden of proof is not an abstract legal concept. It is the shield that protects innocent service members from wrongful conviction. When the government cannot meet that burden, the law demands acquittal. Gonzalez & Waddington has spent decades forcing prosecutors to confront the limits of their evidence and reminding panels of their duty to apply the law as written. If you are facing an Article 120 allegation, understanding and enforcing the burden of proof can mean the difference between conviction and freedom.
