DAC-IPAD Reports
Reforming Pretrial Procedures & Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards, June 9, 2023
Appellate Review Study, March 30, 2023
Report on Victim Impact Statements at Courts-Martial Presentencing Procedures, March 30, 2023
Fifth Annual Report, March 30, 2023
Fourth Annual Report: March 30, 2020
Court-Martial Adjudication Data Report: November 25, 2019
Third Annual Report: March 26, 2019
Article 140a, UCMJ, Implementation Recommendations Letter: September 13, 2018
About Us
The Defense Advisory Committee on the Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) was established by the Secretary of Defense under the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015. Since its inception, DAC-IPAD has played a crucial role in reforming military justice related to sexual assault, ensuring fairness for victims and the accused, enhancing access to justice, and promoting transparency.
Our Key Work
- Case Reviews: Conducted a comprehensive review of 1,904 criminal cases involving adult sexual offenses, highlighting the need for better criteria for referring cases to trial.
- Prosecution Standards: Recommended and succeeded in establishing uniform prosecution standards, now adopted by the Secretary of Defense, to ensure fair and consistent handling of cases.
- Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Reviewed data on racial and ethnic disparities in military justice, identifying persistent issues in data collection and representation.
Our Team
Our committee is composed of distinguished professionals, including current and former judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, criminologists, forensic experts, and legal scholars. Together, we leverage our expertise to advise Congress and the Department of Defense on handling sexual misconduct cases within the Armed Forces.
Establishing Documents
Victim Impact Statements at Court-Martial Presentencing Proceedings
Report Name and Recommendation # | Description | Recommendation and Implementation Status | Action |
DAC-IPAD Victim Impact Statements Report R-43 March 2023 |
DoD and President) JSC should draft amendment to R.C.M 1001(c)(2)(B) |
Recommendation 43: The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice (JSC) draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(2)(B) adding the words “or indirectly” to the definition of victim impact, amending the section as follows: “For purposes of this subsection, victim impact includes any financial, social, psychological, or medical impact on the crime victim directly or indirectly relating to or arising from the offense of which the accused has been found guilty.” IMPLEMENTATION: EO 14103, Annex 3, amends R.C.M. 1001(c) and victim impact statements at presentencing proceedings to remove the word “directly” before the words “relating to or arising from” from the definition of victim impact. These amendments took effect Dec. 27, 2023. |
EO 14103 (July 28, 2023) and R.C.M. 1001(c) (2)(B) |
DAC-IPAD Victim Impact Statements Report R-44 March 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft amendment to R.C.M 1001(c)(3) | Recommendation 44: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(3) by adding a sentence stating that a victim impact statement may include a recommendation of a specific sentence except in capital cases. IMPLEMENTATION: EO 14103 amends R.C.M. 1001(c)(3) to allow victims to recommend a specific sentence during their impact statements in noncapital cases. | EO 14103 (July 28, 2023) and R.C.M. 1001(c) |
DAC-IPAD Victim Impact Statements Report R-45 March 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft amendment to R.C.M 1001(c)(5)(A) |
Recommendation 45: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(A) allowing submission of the unsworn victim impact statement by audiotape, videotape, or other digital media, in addition to allowing the statement orally, in writing, or both. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from DoD as of Nov. 2023. |
No action |
DAC-IPAD Victim Impact Statements Report R-46 March 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft amendment to R.C.M 1001(c)(5)(B) | Recommendation 46: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(B) to remove the “upon good cause shown” clause to be consistent with the JSC’s proposed change to R.C.M. 1001(c) (5)(A). IMPLEMENTATION: EO 14103 amends R.C.M. 1001(c)(5) to remove the requirement to show “good cause” in order for the victim’s counsel to read the victim impact statement. | No action |
DAC-IPAD Victim Impact Statements Report R-47 March 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft amendment to R.C.M 1001(c)(5)(B) |
Recommendation 47: The JSC draft an amendment to R.C.M. 1001(c)(5)(B) to remove the requirement that the victim provide a written proffer of the matters addressed in their unsworn statement to trial and defense counsel after the announcement of findings. IMPLEMENTATION: EO 14103 amends R.C.M. 1001(c)(5) to remove the requirement that a victim provide a written proffer of the matters addressed in their victim impact statement to the trial counsel and defense counsel after the announcement of findings. |
EO 14103 (July 28, 2023) and R.C.M. 1001(c) (5) |
Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards
Report Name and Recommendation # | Description | Recommendation and Implementation Status | Action |
DAC-IPAD Report on Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards R-48a June 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 32 |
Recommendation 48a: Amend Article 32 to provide that a preliminary hearing officer’s determination of no probable cause precludes referral of the affected specification(s) to a general court-martial—subject to reconsideration as described in Recommendation 48b—without prejudice to the government to prefer new charges. IMPLEMENTATION: No legislative change as of Jan 2024. |
No action |
DAC-IPAD Report on Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards R-48b June 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 32 (DoD and President) JSC should draft amendment to R C M 405 |
Recommendation 48b: Amend Article 32 and Rule for Courts Martial 405 to permit reconsideration of a preliminary hearing officer’s no-probable-cause determination upon the presentation of newly discovered evidence, or evidence that, in the exercise of due diligence, could not reasonably have been obtained before the original hearing, subject to the following: 1. Trial counsel, within 10 days of receiving the preliminary hearing officer’s report, petitions the preliminary hearing officer to reopen the Article 32 preliminary hearing stating the nature of the newly discovered evidence and the reason it was not previously presented. After 10 days, a petition may be made only for good cause shown. The preliminary hearing officer shall reconsider their previous no-probable-cause determination one time upon reopening the Article 32 preliminary hearing to receive the evidence as described above. After reconsideration, the preliminary hearing officer’s determination as to whether probable cause exists is final, but is without prejudice to the government to prefer new charges. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from Congress or DoD as of Jan. 2024. |
No action |
DAC-IPAD Report on Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards R-49 June 2023 |
(DoD) Revise Appendix 2 1, Manual for Courts-Martial |
Recommendation 49: The Secretary of Defense revise Appendix 2.1, Manual for Courts-Martial, to align with the prosecution principles contained in official guidance of the United States Attorney General with respect to disposition of federal criminal cases. These revisions should provide that special trial counsel refer charges to a court-martial, and judge advocates recommend that a convening authority refer charges to a court-martial, only if they believe that the Service member’s conduct constitutes an offense under the UCMJ, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction when viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder. IMPLEMENTATION: On Oct. 24, 2023, SecDef signed revised Appendix 2.1 Disposition Guidance for the MCM implementing Recommendation 49. The new language reads: 2 1 Interests of Justice and Good Order and Discipline a. Whether admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a finding of guilty in a trial by court-martial when viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder; 2 3 Referral. b. A special trial counsel should not refer, and a staff judge advocate or other judge advocate involved in the disposition process should not recommend that a convening authority refer, a charge to a court-martial unless the special trial counsel, staff judge advocate, or other judge advocate believes that the Service member’s conduct constitutes an offense under the UCMJ and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a finding of guilty when viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder. |
Appendix 2.1 Disposition Guidance for the MCM (Oct. 24, 2023) |
DAC-IPAD Report on Reforming Pretrial Procedures and Establishing Uniform Prosecution Standards R-50 June 2023 |
(DoD) Require training on prosecution standards | Recommendation 50: The Secretary of Defense require all special trial counsel and judge advocates who advise convening authorities to receive training on the newly established prosecution standards in Appendix 2.1 of the Manual for Courts-Martial. The training shall emphasize the principle that referral is appropriate only if these special trial counsel advisors believe that the Service member’s conduct constitutes an offense under the UCMJ, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction when viewed objectively by an unbiased factfinder. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from DoD as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Report Name and Recommendation # | Description | Recommendation & Status | Action |
Randomizing Court-Martial Panel Member Selection Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-53 Dec 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 25(e | Recommendation 53: Congress should amend Article 25(e) to remove the requirement for the convening authority to detail members who “in his opinion, are best qualified” based on “age, education, training, experience, length of service, and judicial temperament.” IMPLEMENTATION: No response from Congress as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-54 Dec 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 25(e)(4) | Recommendation 54: Congress should retain the Article 25(e) (4) requirement for the convening authority to detail members randomly selected under regulations prescribed by the President. The qualifying words “to the maximum extent practicable” should be removed. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from Congress as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-55 Dec 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft an amendment to the R C M | Recommendation 55: The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice should draft an amendment to the Rules for Courts Martial, pursuant to the requirement in Article 25(e)(4), to provide for a randomized court-martial panel member selection process utilizing the Military Services’ personnel and pay systems to select the members. This process should preclude the convening authority or other members of command or the judge advocate office from hand selecting members. In addition to the statutory qualification requirements, the randomized selection process should provide for diversity of members based on grade. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from DoD as of Jan. 2024. | |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-56 Dec 2023 |
(DoD) SecDef should direct a pilot program to create a court administrator position | Recommendation 56: The Secretary of Defense should direct that a pilot project be initiated to create a court administrator position to be responsible for the panel member selection process—rather than the staff judge advocate or command staff. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from DoD as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-57 Dec 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 25 | Recommendation 57: Congress should amend Article 25 to explicitly give convening authorities the authority to determine whether randomly selected Service members are available prior to being detailed to a court-martial panel and retain the authority in Article 25 to exempt or excuse individuals for operational requirements or personal reasons after they have been detailed. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from Congress as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-58 Dec 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft an amendment to the R C M | Recommendation 58: The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice should draft an amendment to the Rules for Courts Martial to provide a transparent method for convening authorities to document availability and excusal determinations. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from DoD as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-59 Dec 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 25 | Recommendation 60: Congress should amend Article 25 to add a two-year time-in-service requirement for court-martial panel member eligibility. For Service Academy cadets and midshipman, the calculation of time in service would commence upon commissioning. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from Congress as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-61 Dec 2023 |
(DoD and President) JSC should draft an amendment to the R C M | Recommendation 61: The Joint Service Committee on Military Justice should draft an amendment to the Rules for Courts Martial to establish uniform criteria for automatic exemption from serving as a court-martial member. For example, federal courts require jury members to be proficient in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition, and not be subject to felony charges or be convicted of a felony. The amendment should delegate authority to each Military Department Secretary to promulgate regulations that establish additional bases for automatic exemption. To ensure maximum transparency, any additional exempting criteria established by the Military Departments should be made public through the Federal Register and by other appropriate means. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from DoD as of Jan. 2024. | No action |
Randomizing Court Martial Panel Member Selection: A Report on Improving an Outdated System R-62 December 2023 |
(Congress) Amend Article 25(e)(2) and (3) | Recommendation 62: Congress should amend Article 25(e)(2) and (3) to remove the requirement that the convening authority detail panel members at the time the court-martial is convened. Instead, it should provide that the convening authority must detail panel members within a reasonable time prior to the swearing in of the detailed members and the assembly of the court-martial. IMPLEMENTATION: No response from Congress as of Jan. 2024. | No action |