Contested Army Article 120b Cases Decided by a Military Judge Alone
The median confinement in 34 contested Army Article 120b (child sexual abuse) cases decided by a military judge alone from 2021–2025 was 3.5 years. In all contested Army Article 120b cases, the median was 8.3 years.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 6 min read
Trends › By Offense › Article 120b › Decided by judge-alone
Short answer: The median confinement in 34 contested Army Article 120b (child sexual abuse) cases decided by a military judge alone from 2021–2025 was 3.5 years. In all contested Army Article 120b cases, the median was 8.3 years. 7 of the 34 judge-alone cases ended in a full acquittal (21%), compared with 32% in all contested Army Article 120b cases.
A Shorter Median Sentence
27 of the 34 cases ended in a conviction on at least one charge, and 25 of those sentences included confinement. The median confinement was 3.5 years, shorter than the 8.3-year median for all contested Army Article 120b cases. A quarter of those sentences were 10.1 years or longer.
Each figure is an adjudged sentence, announced at trial before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal. A sentence covers every charge in the case, so other charges tried with Article 120b are part of it.
Where the Difference Appears in the Bands
The share of sentences longer than one year was about the same in both groups: 21 of 27 convictions here (78%), compared with 79%. The difference is in how much longer. Sentences of 5 years or more made up 37% of convictions here, compared with 55% in all contested Army Article 120b cases.
Sentences of more than 1 year and under 5 years made up 41%, compared with 25%. At the low end, 2 convictions carried no confinement and 1 carried under 6 months. Only a general court-martial can adjudge more than one year of confinement.
| Adjudged confinement | Convictions | Share here | Share, all contested Army Article 120b cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| No confinement | 2 | 7% | 9% |
| Under 6 months | 1 | 4% | 4% |
| 6 months to 1 year | 3 | 11% | 8% |
| More than 1 year, under 5 years | 11 | 41% | 25% |
| 5 years or more | 10 | 37% | 55% |
Verdicts When the Charges Were Contested
All 34 cases were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. No accused pleaded guilty. Of the 34 contested cases that reached a verdict, 7 ended in a full acquittal (21%), lower than the 32% rate in all contested Army Article 120b cases.
16 more cases ended in a partial acquittal: not guilty of at least one charge or specification, guilty of another. Army results list findings charge by charge, which is why partial acquittals are common in Army records.
Why the Forum Groups Differ
A military judge alone decided every case on this page. The accused usually chooses whether a military judge alone or a panel of members decides guilt.
That choice means judge-alone cases and panel cases are not alike. The shorter median and the lower acquittal rate describe what happened in these trials. The records cannot show whether the forum caused either result.
Discharges After Conviction
23 of 26 convicted enlisted members received a punitive discharge: 18 dishonorable discharges and 5 bad-conduct discharges. In all contested Army Article 120b cases, the share was 89%. 1 convicted officer or warrant officer appears here, and that officer was dismissed.
A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct or dishonorable discharge for enlisted members, and dismissal is the officer equivalent. A sentence without one does not rule out a later administrative separation.
Other Articles in These Cases
22 of the 34 cases charged at least one other article. Article 134 (the general article) was the most common, in 8 cases. Article 128 (assault) appeared in 7, Article 120 (sexual assault) in 5, Article 92 (orders violation) in 4, and Article 131b (obstruction) in 3.
The remaining cases charged Article 120b alone. In cases with added charges, the sentence covers all of them together.
The Accused, by Rank
By rank, the accused were 20 junior enlisted members, 12 NCOs, and 2 officers. The group is more junior than all contested Army Article 120b cases.
Junior enlisted members made up the largest group of the accused. The records list rank in broad groups and do not give other details about the accused or about anyone else involved in the case.
Trial Years and Installations
The cases were tried from January 2021 through December 2025: 8 in 2021, 9 in 2022, 8 in 2023, 7 in 2024, and 2 in 2025. Fort Hood had 5 cases, Fort Bliss 4, Fort Leavenworth 3, and Fort Campbell and Fort Carson 2 each. Those five installations account for 47% of the 34 cases. Larger installations try more cases of every kind, so these counts are not a measure of the offense at any base.
Rule Changes and Record Limits
Article 120b is a covered offense. Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether covered offenses are prosecuted. When every guilty finding is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence within new sentencing parameters. Both rules depend on the offense date, which the records do not give.
Trial records show the charges, pleas, findings, and sentence. They do not show the evidence, the plea terms, or conduct handled outside a court-martial. With 34 cases, a few results can move the percentages on this page.
For what the offense covers and how it is defended, see Article 120b on the law firm's website. Dates and sources for the law changes: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2021–2025 that charged Article 120b, had a not-guilty or mixed plea and a result posted, and record a military judge alone as deciding guilt (34 cases), compared with all 78 such contested Army Article 120b cases. The accused usually chooses the forum, so the two groups are not alike.
Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in Military Trial Results, data updated October 24, 2026. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: how this data was built. Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.
Related Analysis
- Article 120b (Rape and Sexual Assault of a Child): Court-Martial Data and Trends (hub)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Sentences (hub)
- Contested Army Article 120b Cases Decided by Members (A Panel)
- Army Article 107 Trials Before Members (A Panel): Verdicts and Sentences
- Army Article 107 Trials Before a Military Judge Alone: Verdicts and Sentences
- Army Article 115 Trials Before a Military Judge Alone: Verdicts and Sentences
- Army Article 119b Trials Before Members (A Panel): Verdicts and Sentences
- Army Article 128 Trials Before a Military Judge Alone: Verdicts and Sentences
- Army Article 80 Trials Before Members (A Panel): Verdicts and Sentences
- Article 120b explained on the law firm's website
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
Compare: federal court. Child Sexual Abuse and Enticement: Federal Sentences vs. Army Courts-Martial
About the author. Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts Where All The Bodies Are Buried and runs the Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart. This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.