Contradicting testimony at an Article 32 preliminary hearing can have a significant effect on the Preliminary Hearing Officer’s (PHO) assessment of the case and their ultimate recommendation. When witnesses provide conflicting accounts of the same event, it directly impacts the PHO’s ability to determine whether probable cause exists. The PHO is tasked with weighing the credibility of the witnesses to resolve these contradictions.
If a key government witness is contradicted by another government witness or by compelling defense evidence, it can severely undermine the strength of the prosecution’s case. The PHO must evaluate the demeanor of the witnesses, the plausibility of their stories, and any corroborating or refuting evidence. If the contradictions are substantial and cast serious doubt on the core allegations, the PHO may conclude that the government has failed to meet its burden of proving probable cause.
For the defense, creating and highlighting contradictions is a primary goal of cross-examination. By eliciting testimony that conflicts with the accuser’s account or with other evidence, the defense can argue that the government’s case is unreliable and untrustworthy. This can persuade the PHO to recommend that charges be dismissed or reduced.
Even if the PHO finds probable cause despite the contradictions, the conflicting testimony is preserved in the official transcript. This becomes an invaluable tool for the defense at trial. The defense can use these prior inconsistent statements to impeach the credibility of government witnesses in front of the court-martial panel. The effect is to demonstrate that the government’s narrative is flawed and riddled with doubt, which can be critical in raising reasonable doubt and securing an acquittal.