The Supervisor's Shortcut
Agent L. is investigating a theft of $9,000 in tools from a unit supply room. He has three sworn statements. Two Soldiers say they saw Pfc. B. loading a duffel bag into his truck at 0200. The third, Sgt. K., says he was on staff duty with B. from 2300 to 0600 and that B. never left the building; K.'s statement is corroborated by a handwritten staff-duty log, though the log has an unexplained gap from 0145 to 0215. Agent L. also finds a text from B. to a pawn shop: 'Got some stuff, can you take it tomorrow?' L.'s supervisor says, 'Leave K.'s statement out of the packet. It will just confuse trial counsel, and we need this wrapped up by Friday. The pawn text is enough.' Agent L. knows the defense will get the file. The supervisor adds, 'If you put it in, you're not a team player.' Agent L. has a draft CID report of investigation and an evidence log that already lists K.'s statement.
1. What are Agent L.'s ethical and legal obligations regarding K.'s statement and the supervisor's instruction?
Read the worked answer
Agent L. cannot omit K.'s statement. It is material and potentially exculpatory: it places B. on staff duty during the theft window. Under Brady and Giglio, the government must disclose favorable evidence, and a CID report that hides a witness undermines the case and the agent's integrity. The supervisor's instruction is not a lawful order. Falsifying or omitting material facts could violate Article 107 (false official statement) and Article 131b (obstruction of justice), and it violates CID standards. The agent should politely refuse, explain the disclosure obligation, and include K.'s statement and the log gap. He should document the supervisor's direction in a memorandum for record or email to himself and preserve his draft. If pressure continues, he should report it through CID leadership or the inspector general. Being a 'team player' does not mean hiding evidence. The defense will receive the file, and the omission would be far more damaging than the inconsistency.
2. How should Agent L. document the conflict and the gap in the staff-duty log?
Read the worked answer
In the report of investigation, summarize K.'s statement accurately and attach it or list it as an exhibit. Describe the staff-duty log, including the 0145-0215 gap, who maintained it, and who had access. Do not speculate about why the gap exists; investigate it. Obtain the original log, photograph it, and preserve it as evidence. Check gate video, security camera footage, the staff-duty roster, and phone records. Interview the staff-duty NCO and anyone who can corroborate the log. Document the supervisor's direction in a separate memorandum for record, with date and exact words, and keep it in the case file or provide it to trial counsel as appropriate. Do not alter the evidence log. If the log gap is innocent, the investigation should show that; if it is not, the report should state the facts, not conclusions.
3. The supervisor later says, 'Fine, include it, but write that K. was unreliable.' What should Agent L. do?
Read the worked answer
Writing that K. is 'unreliable' is a conclusory label and is improper unless it is supported by specific facts. The agent may report objective inconsistencies: K.'s statement conflicts with two other witnesses; the log has a 30-minute gap; K. was the staff-duty NCO and had access to the supply area; or K. gave inconsistent times. But the agent should not adopt the supervisor's characterization to appease him. The report should let the reader evaluate credibility. If the supervisor insists on a false or unsupported characterization, the agent should escalate again and document the pressure. The agent should also avoid retaliation against K. If new evidence shows K. lied, that should be investigated separately with Article 31(b) warnings if K. becomes a suspect. Accuracy and fairness, not the supervisor's preferred conclusion, control.