When the alleged victim of a sexual offense is both a minor and a military dependent, the question of which court system will handle the case is not always straightforward. Military jurisdiction and civilian jurisdiction can both attach to the same conduct, and the decision about which system proceeds first, or whether both do, involves coordination between prosecutors, command, and in some cases federal civilian authorities. The outcome of that jurisdictional decision shapes everything that follows.
From the defense perspective, the forum in which a case is heard matters enormously. Evidentiary rules, procedural rights, sentencing exposure, and the composition of the fact-finder all differ between military and civilian proceedings. A service member facing allegations involving a dependent minor needs counsel who understands both systems and who can assess from the earliest stage which forum is likely to be more or less favorable given the specific facts.
How Jurisdiction Is Determined When a Dependent Is the Victim
When a service member is accused of a sexual offense against a military dependent who is a minor, both military and civilian authorities may have the legal power to prosecute. Military jurisdiction attaches because the accused is subject to the UCMJ. Civilian jurisdiction attaches because the victim is a civilian, even if they live on a military installation, and the offense may violate state or federal civilian criminal law.
The determination of which system will take the case is typically made through coordination between the military’s staff judge advocate, the local U.S. Attorney’s office if the offense occurred on federal property, and state prosecutors. Factors that influence this decision include the severity of the offense, the evidentiary strength of each system’s case, the preference of the victim and victim’s family, and the sentencing tools available in each forum. Defense counsel must be aware of both possibilities from the earliest stage and must not take any action in one forum that creates unintended consequences in the other.
Concurrent Jurisdiction and How It Is Resolved in Practice
When both military and civilian authorities have legal power to prosecute the same conduct, the practical resolution of that concurrent jurisdiction involves informal coordination rather than formal legal hierarchy. Prosecutors in the two systems communicate, assess which forum has the stronger case and the more appropriate remedy, and in most cases reach an informal understanding about which system will proceed. The accused is not a party to this negotiation and has no formal right to influence its outcome, though defense counsel can sometimes provide information to the relevant authorities that bears on the jurisdictional calculus.
The timing of any civilian prosecution relative to the military proceeding matters. Double jeopardy does not bar successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns, but practical considerations often lead the second system to defer if the first has already produced a conviction and sentence that the second considers adequate. A military conviction followed by civilian charges for the same conduct is not automatically barred but is less common than situations where the systems coordinate from the beginning.
Cases Where Both Military and Civilian Charges Were Filed
There are documented cases in which service members faced both military court-martial charges and civilian criminal charges arising from the same underlying conduct. These situations arise most commonly when the alleged offense occurred near a military installation and involved civilians, when federal civilian law was violated in addition to the UCMJ, or when state or local authorities have an independent interest in the matter that the military proceeding does not satisfy.
Defense counsel handling a case with dual-system exposure must coordinate strategy across both proceedings. A decision made in the military proceeding, including a plea, a stipulation of fact, or a statement by the accused, can be used in the civilian proceeding. Testimony given in one system is available in the other. Counsel who are managing both tracks must ensure that the defense strategy is coherent across both rather than optimized for one at the expense of the other.
The Defense Implications of Jurisdiction Choice
When the jurisdictional decision is not yet final, the defense may have an opportunity to provide input through counsel that influences which system will take the case. Arguments about the adequacy of military proceedings, the availability of specific punishments or collateral consequences in one forum versus another, and the interests of the alleged victim may all be relevant to the jurisdictional decision. Defense counsel who understand the decision-making process in each jurisdiction can present arguments that favor the forum most likely to produce the best outcome for the accused.
Once the jurisdictional decision is made and one system has proceeded to conviction or acquittal, the double jeopardy and dual sovereignty analysis becomes critical. An acquittal in the military system does not bar civilian prosecution, but it creates a record of not-guilty findings that the civilian prosecutor will have to contend with. A military conviction may satisfy the civilian system’s interests and lead to a decision not to prosecute, particularly if the sentence is perceived as adequate.
Coordinating With Civilian Counsel When Both Systems Are Active
A service member who faces charges in both the military and civilian systems needs counsel who are competent in both environments. The JAG attorney assigned to represent them in the military proceeding may have limited experience with civilian criminal defense and may not be positioned to advise on how military proceedings affect civilian exposure. Civilian military defense counsel who have experience in both systems are better positioned to coordinate the dual-track strategy.
In cases where separate civilian counsel and military counsel are involved, clear communication and coordination between them is essential. Each attorney must understand what the other is doing and why, and the client must understand how decisions in one proceeding affect the other. Regular coordination meetings, a shared understanding of the overall defense strategy, and clear lines of authority about who makes which decisions ensure that the defense in each forum reinforces rather than undermines the other.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.