![]() It is my personal belief that many Soldiers are found guilty at nonjudicial punishment because the wrong standard of proof is being applied.įor the Air Force, AFI 51-202 states that there is no burden of proof at an Article 15 proceeding however, that Commanders should be aware that the Airman could turn it down and demand a trial by Court-Martial, at which the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Often times, just pointing this out to the imposing authority during nonjudicial punishment proceedings can result in an acquittal for the Soldier. This is the highest standard of proof and it is difficult to achieve. This means that the evidence presented at these proceedings must establish the guilt of a Soldier beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the same burden of proof required for a Court Martial conviction. I have heard many senior officers and noncommissioned officers get it wrong, and even say that there is no burden of proof.įor the Army, the burden of proof at nonjudicial punishment proceedings is beyond a reasonable doubt (See AR 27-10). The UCMJ itself is silent on the matter, allowing each service to determine what the burden of proof is. There are misconceptions about the burden of proof at nonjudicial punishment (article 15, office hours, mast, etc.). There are many different types of burdens of proof however, the most common ones are the preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not/51 percent), clear and convincing evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is the degree of certainty which someone’s guilt must be proven before he/she can be found guilty. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |