Cody Harnish
Jan 28, 2025
The 2025 NDAA: A Threat to Defense and Justice in Military Courts
As a UCMJ Attorney, I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) regarding the handling of mental health information in court. This shift is not in favor of the defense and could have significant implications for military justice.
Understanding the Current Landscape
Military Rule of Evidence 513 (M.R.E. 513) is designed to protect private conversations between service members and their therapists. However, for years, courts have clarified that diagnoses and prescriptions are not covered under this privilege. This distinction has been crucial for the defense, allowing access to critical information about an accuser’s mental health history.
The Impact of U.S. v. Mellette
The case of United States v. Mellette was a landmark decision for the defense. The court ruled that M.R.E. 513 protects the content of conversations between a patient and therapist but not the diagnoses or prescriptions derived from those sessions. This ruling was vital because it enabled the defense to explore credibility issues, reveal alternative explanations for accusations, and present a more comprehensive picture of events.
For instance, if an accuser had a history of false claims, paranoia, or conditions affecting memory and perception, the defense could introduce this context into court. This was a significant victory for justice, ensuring that all relevant information was considered before making a decision.
The 2025 NDAA’s Proposed Changes
The 2025 NDAA seems to seek a reversal of the Mellette decision by suggesting that diagnoses and prescriptions should be protected under M.R.E. 513. If enacted, this would mean that while the government can still access a service member’s mental health records for prosecution purposes, the defense may be barred from obtaining vital information that could help clear an accused service member’s name.
This is not merely a privacy issue; it is about creating an uneven playing field in military courtrooms. The defense should have the right to know if an accuser’s mental health history includes conditions that could influence their perception, memory, or honesty. The Mellette ruling ensured that courts had a complete picture before determining someone’s fate. The NDAA’s proposed changes threaten to undermine this fairness.
A Dangerous Shift in Military Justice
The military justice system has long been perceived as favoring the prosecution. This proposed change in the NDAA could exacerbate this imbalance, making it even more challenging for the accused to receive a fair trial. By limiting the defense’s access to crucial mental health information, the NDAA risks increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions.
Conclusion
This move is not about safeguarding mental health records; it is about protecting the prosecution’s case. When the defense is hindered from uncovering the full truth, justice is compromised. We must advocate for a system that ensures fairness and transparency for all service members involved in legal proceedings.