mr. bartoe and i are here to discuss 412 and 513 and how they're litigated at article 32 hearings in courts martial. to give my comments perspective, i'll note that i've litigated issues as a trialaged as a defense counsel. i've ruled on them as a military judge. i've taught class toss subordinate trial and defense counsel on how to litigate these cases in court. most recently bive been a policy maker as a member of the joint services committee where we recommended a revision to rules that would apply the protection of the articles is at hearings but would eliminate the constitutionally excepted. they've recommended changes to m.r.e. 512 to clarify that a victim's right to be heard at an m.r.e. 513 hearing includes the right to be represented by counsel. i'd like to offer a couple of observations and an anecdote before i turn the microphone who will walk you through the prorlede rules. i'll offer as a general proposition that when the rules are applied, that the rules strike the balance between

>> thank you both for your testimony, mr. barto you said that in describing the judicial making process, that even if the proposed evidence to be offered passes the 412 scrutiny, that there is still this score of three examinations that take place. do you know cases where evidence passes scrutiny under 412 but is not under 403 question mark can you comment question mark >> the military rule of evidence requires judges to analyze evidence under rule 403. evident the rule of evidence 412c3, i believe, expressly requires that. so it happened in every case. i think the most common scenario i can recollect from my own time as a military judge, and even by reference to gattis, it doesn't necessarily result in the exclusion of an entire incident of prior sexual behavior or sexual predisposition on the part of the victim, but what it frequently results in is a narrowing of the evidence tendered, narrowing of the scope of permissible cross-examination perhaps. and in gattis, that's what the judge did. she narrowed the scope of cross-examina

. >> one quick question please for you mr. barto. in one of the reading materials that was provided to us, which was 2003 article on the mre 513. it was stated that under the army regulation about time that tribal council agents and commanders could access mental health records if they had an unofficial need for the information. individuals contrasted with the air force rule which did not allow that because of 513. so my question is has changed, has the army changed so it's operating in concert with the spirit of the 513? spinet i don't want to overstate my knowledge on this area, mr. taylor, but i think it has changed with the advent of hippa and the increased privacy interest. my understanding is that it is no longer army policy. i will verify that and provide information to the panel. >> admiral tracy? >> thank you mr. tracy and mr. barto. thanks for your testimony this morning. to the next panel which is privacy sexual assault cases, sexual conduct. >> looking at campaign 2014, here are three debates tonight for seats in the hous

background, i would like to offer a couple of observations and one anecdote before i turn it over to mr. barto who will walk you through the procedural rules. first, i will offer as a germ proposition that when the procedural rules are properly applied that 412 and 513 strike the balance between protecting a victim's privacy interests and providing theact finder relevant evidence needed to determine the innocence of an accused. second over the course of my career, i have seen an increase in 412 litigation and even larger increase in 513 litigation and i have also observed an increased concern for protecting the privacy rights of victims.d, when exami rules, please take into account the important new role that victims' legal counselor special victim's counsel play in protecting a victim's privacy rights. in the marine corps, our victim legal council provide our victims the right to be heard in article 32 hearings and article 39 a sessions and 412 and 513. i was surprised this morning when i looked at the ajeopardya of speakers and didn't see someone from the victim legal counsel to address this