Thank you very much for coming today. Were going to talk about the perspectives of the Services SpecialVictim Counsel, Program Manager regarding conviction and acquittal rates, the case adjudication process and the victim declination in the military justice process. So thank you all. Some of the responses to the committee raised concerns that the judge advocate lacked expensive experience dealing specifically with Sexual Assault cases other responses indicated due to the limited scope of article 32 preliminary hearing officers do not have all the information needed to make a probable cause determination that is binding. The overall assessment was the staff judge advocate who is often more experienced is in a better position to advise the convening authority on probable cause. Should a judge advocate, sitting as a preliminary hearing officer serve in that role only if if he or she has significant litigation experience in Sexual Assault cases . Maam, the ideal would be yes, you would want someone with the skill set to serve as a preliminary hearing officer. But unfortunately thats not always the ideal case as were structured with personnel throughout the army. However, i do believe that the best person for the final determination is the staff judge advocate because of his or her experience and the fact that they have, you know, Additional Resources available to them starting with the special victims prosecutor, the senior trial counsel, the trial counsel to advise, you know, what may have or may not have been raised during the 32 process. And then make the requisite advice and provide the requisite advice to the convening authority. Good morning, maam. Yes, absolutely the preliminary hearing officer should have extensive litigation experience. The navy just recently stood up a reserved unit of preliminary hearing officers to assist in that capacity where we have prior active duty judge advocates who in their civilian capacity work in some have extensive experience in litigation or maybe a u. S. Attorneys office, might be prosecution or defense. However, unfortunately the numbers in that unit just dont meet the need of the numbers of preliminary hearing officers that we have. So in that capacity, the navy next step is to use our military justice career track folks who have extensive litigation experience to sit in that capacity as the preliminary hearing officer, however, again, based on the numbers theyre not always available, depending on the location, if its a remote location or given the other needs for prosecution or Defense Services filling those roles with our number of military justice career track personnel. Yes, maam, we agree. In addition to being a fully trained and certified and sworn judge advocate to conduct the hearing it would be important to the sja to examine and identify a foe that has the experience and expertise and knowledge to adequately assess the evidence at the hearing. And the only one real key way to do that is the officers will know, generally, the background, training, experience of potential foes out there and the sj would have the opportunity to assess whether or not that officer would be able to conduct a thorough and fair and well thought out hearing with a solid recommendation. I would echo what has already been stated. Ideally it would be someone with extensive military justice and criminal justice experience. In the air force we often use military judges, however, they are not always available. So a person with Extensive Knowledge of the system and criminal law would be ideal. But again, sometimes just because of the numbers and availability theyre not always going to be able to have either a judge or someone with extensive military justice experience. For the coast guard, definitely in a Perfect World they would have litigation experience, military justice experience. Unfortunately the coast guard as small as it is, theres less opportunities for them to get that military justice experience. So if there was some requirement, it would make sense for the coast guard because it just couldnt pull from a bench of experienced personnel to at least require some kind of training on Sexual Assault so they would be aware of the nuances in Sexual Assault cases. We heard a lot about the change in the article 32. So post that change, 2014, have any of you had clients testify in a 32 . Let me start with you ms. Speck . Yes, the coast guard has definitely had clients who have wanted and and have testified at article 32 hearings. And those instances that i can think about right now, theyve actually desired the opportunity to speak or theyve thought that it their attorney has been anxious for them to have that experience first because of various reasons related to whats been relayed to them. Similar in the air force. We have had some clients who have testified, often its to add Additional Information that was not in the original statement to Law Enforcement or it would be beneficial for them to have the experience of sitting on a stand and going through the process of testifying, although i will say its probably not the norm. Its a few outlier cases and the majority of our clients choose not to testify. Im not able to answer that right now, maam, im not aware of that. I know that my deputy who works for me, he came to be the deputy vlc at the headquarters previously served as the rvlc in camp le juene, North Carolina and his experience and information to me was that his clients did not testify. Yes, maam, for the navy, we have had clients who have testified after consultation with victim Legal Counsel, trial counsel for the same reasons articulated by the other panel members. Maam, im not sure im not qualified to answer that question. Ive been the Program Manager for a little over a month. However from the sja perspective, which i have been in the past, most of the victims have chosen not to participate in the article 32, but there have been some cases where they do. We saw it, i dont know if you were here for that, there are pretty high acquit cal rates, either complete acquittal rates or acquittal rates on all the Sexual Assault, we certainly read from the victim representative perspective how devastating that is whether they feel they werent believed or they went through this whole process for nothing. Given that, do you think there should be a higher threshold, other than probable cause . I think theres the nonbinding guidance but to push a case and refer it to courtmartial . Colonel . No, maam, i do not believe there should be a higher threshold. Victims do not like full acquittals, obviously. However, the process, i believe, has significant protections built in. Its not only about the conviction, its about making sure the process worked fairly and equitably for both the victim and the accused in that regard. But the focussing on the victim and their opportunity to participate with full understanding of the potential consequences of a full acquittal, i believe is best for the victim, in my experience, what im learning in the process, is their ability to know that they have been validated and heard through the process is significant for their healing. And that is something that we need to protect. Maam, i dont think there should be a higher barr, however, i think one of the other questions we were asked regarding the victims expectations, given the entire process and understanding at each point in the process, the effects, and although victims are emotionally devastated, some of them are happy to have gone through the process and to have seen it and to have experienced that that they feel like their voice was heard ultimately by the trier of fact. And others do not. They, as you articulated at the end, they feel like the system was not fair and they did not get a fair shake at it. But i dont think that changing the standard would fix that. I agree, maam. I dont think changing the standard would be beneficial. But continuing to allow, you know, the victim to participate and be educated and informed through the process is whats most important. And i would also agree that changing the stand daard would be in the best interests. Our clients often express while theyre disappointed or devastated, depending on the acquittal, often the way they perceive how theyve been treated throughout the entire process and their interactions with investigators, trial counsel, defense counsel and other individuals involved in the process, that has a great influence in how they perceive whether or not they were treated fairly and given an opportunity to present to a finder of fact what happened to them and then go through the process. I just reiterate exactly what everybody has already said. I think there is value to victims to go through the process itself. Theres points throughout the process they have an opportunity to participate. So the idea that by making the making a higher determination than probable cause would somehow alleviate the despair or negative feelings with an acquittal is not really the right way to look at it in the fact they have an svc or vcl helping them the entire time manage expectations or talk about success aside from the conviction. If theyre working together, you can really help the victim understand that what the panel says is not definitive. Theres value in going through this. What the panel says isnt necessarily what the victim actually experienced. Ill go. Thank you for your service. After the acquittal, the victim, how do you see the victim being able to adapt, go back to the unit, get back into the mission of that unit and how many of them do you see that throws their hands up and say im out of here, im gone. Sir, it really sort of piggy backs on what i just said. I feel like the quality of the response will lead to the recovery. So if there was an engaged trial counsel, if there was a supportive command. If the victim felt all the way through that he or she was allowed to participate in meaningful ways then i think the Recovery Process is much easier for them, regardless of what the panel might say. No doubt again, but theres disappointment there. But i dont see a cross the board victims throwing up their hands and saying im leaving as a result of this. I would echo that. Its very individual. Its going to be up to that individual and how he or she perceives how they were supported and whats going on in their life, where they are in the Recovery Process. Its very, very individual, very very specific. In fact, even when there is a conviction, that healing process is not complete. Theyre still going through that acquittal or conviction is not necessarily closure for that individual. As far as how many clients do we see choosing to separate, i dont have that data available. I agree, sir. And its not just the importance of the expectation management and the care and advocacy for the client through the process, but its also important to remember that that marine is coming from the unit and that marine is going to have probably for an extensive period of time been suffering through the process procedurally. As that unit is there supporting that victim through the process, that includes whatever the result of the trial may be, but where it really is going to be important regardless of the outcome is post trial. Obviously, with the impact that a full acquittal can have, youre going to have to have some leadership, some commanders,i some ncos to take care of that marine and insure that marines well being. Similarly, you know, the culmination of the long process, even if it was a successful conviction is going to come with significant emotional challenges in and of itself. The concluding this process thats been dominating large aspect of their life for so long is important to remember that in either case acquittal or conviction, that marine and Service Member is going to need some significant help and support afterwards. As for the numbers of how many choose to separate, i dont have those numbers, sir. And we likewise do not have the numbers. I dont have the numbers on how many choose to separate or how many choose to remain. Some do choose to leave and as the others have stated, its important for even those folks who do choose to leave we provide them with the right resources and what it would help to make the decision, make sure theyre cared for afterwards, whether it be under the disability valuation system or other Resources Available to those Service Members who do choose to leave and make that decision with the help of the resources that we have. I concur can what my colleagues have said. I think the benefit to the way were structured right now is the fact that, you know, theres an opportunity for some who choose to leave, will go ahead and leave. Others will ask for a change of station to get a fresh start somewhere else following it throughout the process or early in the process. Some have automatically requests an expedited transfer to be in a location that is divorced and separate from the horrors of where the incident occurred and the accused at that point. So that those options are available to the victims, and the other benefit is when they move someplace else, we improve the process so that weve provided for a very good warm hand off so that the physical, emotional well being of the victims are taken care of at the new installation. I know you said none of you had those numbers, but do you know if your services are tracking and not just after Court Martial, after filing a complaint. A lot of the cases dont even go to referral. Do you know if your services are tracking, filing a complaint and fairly shortly after the resolution of the complaint leaving the service . I dont believe so. I just got a head shake. I am unaware of tracking that information. I can definitely take that back and research it for you. Maam, i was informed we do not track that. Likewise, i looked around, too to find support. Got the same headshake. We are not tracking those statistics right now, maam. To go back to article xxxii for a minute. What difference would it make to your clients if there was no article xxxii at all . Whatever you would offer to it in the case if you have something to offer instead you offered it to the sja . Would it make any difference to your plans . Conceivably. I think sometimes because those are in the same area as the victims, theres even though the svc will try to explain the process and the roles of the military justice practitioners, i can envision i dont know this for sure. I can envision a victim and embracing an iso because they believe them to be the neutral unattached individual who is looking at all the evidence by someone who is sort of a friend of the command so to speak. I think there is some value in the article 32 in that the victim is able to attend and watch the proceedings. All 15 minutes of it . Yeah. If there are evidentiary issues that come up, such as perhaps mre 412 issues regarding past sexual history, the svc is able to advocate on behalf of their clients privacy rights of article 32. They can make an appropriate determination based upon the facts of that particular case and that they get a copy of the recording at the end as well. So i think there is value to the victim to see that processing work. Yes, i agree. Theres value as the line of vlcs are sitting and working and explaining the process to the accused. The feedback from the field has been the trust in the system, the thoroughness, despite the conversation earlier about it being a 15 minute paper drill. It is an additional step in the process where you can convey to your client that an independent officer with Legal Training is going to take a close look at the evidence and make a recommendation and write a report. With that said, i think some of the answers that we provided to some of the other questions highlighted the importance to the client and some frustrations that can exist with delay just to the overall system. So i think if there was a way to, you know if there was a system in place that could help expedite the 32 process or in your example just to get rid of it all together. That would potentially shrink the process. That would be something that would be appealing to a victim potentially. Yes, sir, i do see value in it to the victim as far as requiring that faith in the process as far as checks and balances. Theres an analysis of the facts that are hearing or after the hearing and theres another entity looking at the charges. Sometimes the Trial Council may not have presented to the victim all of the information. Then getting that transcript and getting the tape on having that information helps them see the process as its proceeding forward. Sir, i absolutely think theres value to it. I think its the first step toward healing for the victim. Going through the process or getting the information and reading it, understanding whats going on out there. And, you know, the firing of the hearing officer is an acknowledgment that something happened, even though its a lower threshold of probable cause. Something happened. I think thats crucial to victims and their healing. One of you mentioned i want to follow up. Some frustration with the length of the process, if there was a way of expediting the length of the investigation, the process. Do you have any suggestions to how this process could be expedited without sacrificing fact gathering . Im going to start with you, colonel hamilton. I dont have a clear answer for you, maam, on a way to expedite it. Because i think if we attempt to expedite too quickly, we will rush things to the point where we may not insure justice is served. Either for the victim or the accused. So i think we the process, while it has its flaws is working and im seeing the mere fact that more victims are willing to come forward and, you know, request svc and engage in the process is significant from where remembering the svc program hasnt reached its fiveyear anniversary for the army. I mean, sixyear anniversary. Were in our fifth year now. The numbers and the increase that, you know, of how many people are requesting svc shows the process is becoming more familiar and victims are more willing to engage in the process. So as far as a way to expedite it, i dont have an answer for you specifically other than i know its working for victims. Maam, before i answer that question, id like to go back to the last answer as well. The article 32 is also good for the victims