Victim impact statements referencing uncharged conduct face careful screening under relevance and prejudice standards. Military judges must balance victim rights to full expression against preventing sentencing based on unproven allegations. RCM 1001(c) permits victim impact evidence about direct harm from convicted offenses but doesn’t authorize presenting new criminal allegations. References to uncharged misconduct require close scrutiny for admissibility.
Permissible impact evidence includes how convicted offenses affected victims, including ongoing trauma, financial losses, and life disruptions. Brief contextual references to surrounding circumstances may be necessary for understanding impact. However, detailed allegations of separate criminal acts face exclusion as improper aggravation. The line between explaining impact and alleging new crimes requires careful judgment.
Military judges typically review written statements before presentation, redacting inadmissible portions while preserving legitimate impact evidence. Live testimony receives similar screening through pretrial hearings or careful monitoring. Instructions clarify that sentencing considers only convicted offenses, not allegations in impact statements. The defense may request limiting instructions or respond to improper allegations through cross-examination or rebuttal. The balance honors crime victims’ voices while maintaining fundamental fairness in sentencing proceedings based on proven conduct.