Military prosecutors may meet privately with victims’ Special Victims’ Counsel (SVC) or Victims’ Legal Counsel (VLC) post-referral, as these attorneys represent victims’ interests, not parties to the court-martial. These meetings facilitate understanding victims’ concerns, coordinating testimony logistics, and addressing victims’ rights under Article 6b. However, boundaries exist regarding permissible communication scope and potential discovery obligations arising from such meetings.
Communications should focus on victim rights, preferences regarding participation, and logistical coordination rather than substantive testimony coaching. Prosecutors cannot use VLC as conduits to circumvent direct victim communication restrictions or obtain privileged information. If VLCs provide information affecting case merits, discovery obligations may arise. Work product protections generally don’t shield communications revealing new evidence or witness information.
Defense counsel lack standing to prohibit these meetings but may seek discovery of communications affecting case preparation. Military judges balance victim privacy against defense discovery rights when disputes arise. Best practices include documenting meeting purposes and maintaining professional boundaries. Trial counsel should avoid creating appearance of coaching through VLCs or using them to gather information unavailable through direct victim contact. The system recognizes VLCs’ unique role while ensuring fundamental fairness and preventing circumvention of established communication rules through counsel intermediaries.