When a witness makes inconsistent statements and both statements were made under an oath administered pursuant to Article 136 of the UCMJ (e.g., a sworn statement to CID and later, conflicting testimony at a court-martial), it creates two significant legal issues. First, it severely damages the witness’s credibility. Second, it exposes the witness to a potential prosecution for perjury or false swearing.
A military defense attorney will use the prior inconsistent sworn statement as a powerful tool for impeachment during cross-examination. The attorney will confront the witness with their earlier statement and force them to either admit they lied then or are lying now. This demonstrates to the court-martial panel that the witness is unreliable and that their testimony cannot be trusted. This can create the reasonable doubt needed for an acquittal. The attorney will argue in closing that the government’s entire case rests on a witness who has told two different stories under oath.
From the government’s perspective, this situation is a major problem. Not only does it weaken their current case, but the witness may have committed a separate criminal offense. If the evidence shows that the witness willfully and corruptly provided a false statement under oath, the prosecutor can charge them with perjury under Article 131, UCMJ. The handling of the inconsistent sworn statements thus becomes a critical part of the trial’s strategy and can have serious consequences for both the case and the witness.