In the civilian world, it’s the job of an attorney in a criminal trial to do all he can to put the prosecution and law enforcement in a bad light. He will accuse the state of grave mistakes and of withholding exculpatory evidence. He is going to show that the police detectives are a bunch of drunken, incompetent, racist, negligent high school dropouts who were only hired because the police chief is their father-in-law.
In other word, it’s the defense counsel’s job to give the prosecution hell. He is paid by his client to do precisely this. If the district attorney hates his guts, he doesn’t care.
A JAG officer on the other hand who is assigned to defend a service member in a court martial is still wearing a uniform and a member of a strictly hierarchical organization. He probably also has a career ahead of him, in that very same organization.
So how aggressive can a Military lawyer be in the interest of his client (I don’t know if client even is the right word)?
Isn’t there a possibility that he will be viewed as a trouble maker by his peers and by the JAG leadership?
What if this young Military lawyer one evening, during a particularly controversial, high profile trial, receives a phone call from a Brigadier General X from JAG headquarters:
“Captain, you are doing a very impressive job, a real fire eater in the courtroom. I was the same when I was your age. But listen, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to tone it down just a little bit. Don’t get me wrong, I would never try to influence you, that wouldn’t be right, wouldn’t it?” (laughs heartily) “And oh, I almost forgot, something completely unrelated: I hear that your promotion to Major is basically a done deal. And by the way, I also hear that the Deputy Judge Advocate General is still looking for a new personal assistant. Such a good assignment, but of course, you know, only the most reliable young lawyers do qualify”.
How independent are JAG officers?