Investigation Procedures: Difference between revisions

The term “evidence,” as it relates to the investigation, speaks to a wide range of information sources that might eventually inform the court-martial to prove or disprove points at issue before the trier of fact. Sources of evidence can consist of anything from the observations of witnesses to the examination and analysis of physical objects. It can even include the spatial relationships between people, places, and objects within the timeline of events. From the various forms of evidence, the Military Judge(s) can draw inferences and reach conclusions to determine if a charge has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Military Judge(s) will also generally attribute a high probative value to physical exhibits. Physical evidence is highly valued because they are items the court-martial can see and examine to interpret the facts in issue for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Physical evidence can include just about anything, such as weapons, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire marks, tool impressions, hair, fiber, or body fluids. These kinds of physical exhibits of evidence can be examined and analyzed by experts who can provide the members of the court-martial with expert opinions that connect the item of evidence to a person, place, or criminal event. This allows the court-martial to consider circumstantial connections of the accused to the crime scene or the accused to the victim.

Relevant evidence speaks to an issue before the court-martial in relation to the charge being heard. Relevant evidence includes both direct evidence and indirect circumstantial evidence. For either direct or indirect circumstantial evidence to be considered relevant to the court-martial, it must relate to the elements of the offense that need to be proven. If the evidence does not relate to proving the place, time, identity of the accused, or criminal acts within the offense itself, the evidence will not be considered relevant to the charge. The Trial Counsel(s) may present evidence in the form of a physical exhibit that members of the court-martial can see and examine to consider, or they may present evidence in the form of witness testimony, in which case the witness is telling the members of the court-martial what they perceived within the limits of their senses.

Indirect evidence, also called circumstantial evidence, is all other evidence, such as the fingerprint of an accused found at the crime scene. Indirect evidence does not by itself prove the offence, but through interpretation of the circumstances and in conjunction with other evidence may contribute to a body of evidence that could prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Strong circumstantial evidence that only leads to one logical conclusion can sometimes become the evidence the Military Judge(s) use in reaching belief beyond a reasonable doubt to convict an accused. It requires assumptions and logical inferences to be made by the court-martial to attribute meaning to the evidence.

Naturally, direct evidence that shows the accused committed the crime is the preferred inculpatory evidence, but, in practice, this is frequently not available. The SFSECIS Agents must look for and interpret other sources for evidence and information. Often, many pieces of circumstantial evidence are required to build a case that allows the SFSECIS Agents to achieve reasonable grounds to believe and enables the court-martial to reach their belief beyond a reasonable doubt.

A single fingerprint found on the outside door of a stolen runabout would not be sufficient for the court-martial-martial to find an accused guilty of small craft theft. However, if you added witness evidence to show that the accused was seen near the runabout at the time it was stolen, a security recording of the accused entering the runabout, and the suspect was captured while in the runabout, the court-martial-martial would likely have proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If an abundance of inculpatory circumstantial evidence can be acquired for presentation to members of the court-martial that leads to a single logical conclusion, the Military Judge(s) will often reach their conclusion of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, unless exculpatory evidence is presented by the defense to create a reasonable doubt.

Military Judges assign a great deal of probative value to corroborative evidence because it assists the court-martial in reaching their belief beyond a reasonable doubt. For SFSECIS Agents, it is important to not just look for the minimum amount of evidence apparent at the scene of a crime. The investigation must also seek out other evidence that can corroborate the facts attested to by witnesses or victims in their accounts of the event. An interesting example of corroborative evidence can be found in the court-martial’s acceptance of SFSECIS Agents notes as being circumstantially corroborative of that officer’s evidence and account of the events. When SFSECIS Agents testify in a court-martial, they are usually given permission by the Military Judge(s) to refer to their notes to refresh their memory and provide a full account of the events. If the SFSECIS Agent(s) notes are detailed and accurate, members of the court-martial can give significant weight to the Agent's account of those events. If the notes lack detail or are incomplete on significant points, the court-martial may assign less value to the accuracy of the SFSECIS Agent's account.

<h5 style="font-family: 'Trebuchet MS','Arial'; color: royalblue; font-weight: bold;">Article 31 Rights</h5>

'''The Right to Remain Silent:''' Service members have the right to refrain from providing any information or statements that could be used against them in a court-martial or other military proceedings.

'''Notification of Rights and Accusations:''' Before any questioning takes place, military personnel must be informed of their rights under Article 31. They must also be made aware of the nature of the allegations or charges being brought against them.

'''Inadmissibility of Improperly Obtained Statements:''' Any information obtained in violation of a service member’s Article 31 rights may be deemed inadmissible. This can significantly impact the prosecution’s case and potentially lead to the dismissal of charges.

* No charge or specification may be referred to a general court-martial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline (SFUCMJ 832-32.1).  

In the trial of a person charged with an offense in a court-martial proceeding, the Military Judge(s) will hear the evidence and arguments presented by both the Trial Counsel(s) and Defense Counsel(s). The Trial Counsel(s) and the Defense exist in a court-martial in an adversarial relationship with the onus resting on the Trial Counsel(s) to prove the facts of the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may challenge the evidence, question the testimony and the credibility of witnesses, and present alternate theories of events or evidence, where the accused person could be considered not responsible or sometimes less responsible for the alleged offense.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard measure of proof that the criminal court-martial will apply when determining if the evidence presented by the Trial Counsel(s) is sufficient to convict the person charged with an offense. If the evidence is sufficient, and the burden of proof has been satisfied, the court-martial may convict the accused. In these cases, the onus to prove all the elements of the charge rests completely with the Trial Counsel(s). The accused person is not required to prove that they are innocent.