Factual error: The episode took a lot of liberties to further the plot when Amelia Albers was arrested by the Coast Guard in ADA Barba's office. While the story mentioned a real controversial military pamphlet on how victims should respond to a sexual assault, at the time the episode took place, the military was under a massive investigation over sexual assaults in Washington, was being widely criticized for lack of assault victim support, and had a bill being considered in Congress to make it easier for victims to report their attackers. There is no way any military prosecutor would have been given clearance to charge Amelia with adultery or fraternization while the men she was accused of sleeping with were arrested and already on trial for gang-raping her. Doing so would bring a lot of unwanted bad press and a possible congressional investigation on the Coast Guard that would almost certainly want to know why they are attempting to cover up a rape by charging the victim instead, especially when the rape victim was an admiral's daughter.
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (1999)
1 mistake in Military Justice - chronological order
Starring: Christopher Meloni, Richard Belzer, Mariska Hargitay, Dann Florek
More quotes from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
More trivia for Law & Order: Special Victims Unit
Question: Why was A.J. only charged with reckless endangerment? The video showed him punching Paula in the back when she's climbing the stairwell, getting punched in the face by A.J. and then being dragged away unconscious. Shouldn't he have been charged with either aggravated assault or assault and battery instead considering how violent he was?
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Answer: I didn't see the show so I don't know the details. A general answer would be because a reckless endangerment charge is easier to prove "beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in court and get a conviction. This charge would not require the prosecutor to prove intent, which would be required for proving aggravated or simple assault. Also, if there were no visible injuries, it is difficult to show bodily injury. Just because the reckless endangerment charge was specifically mentioned, it does not necessarily mean there were not other charges filed. Police often make multiple charges, like lesser-included offenses, so that the defendant's act will fall under one of them if the legal requirements are not met for the others, if they are not sure of the best charge to make (the district attorney knows and can decide), or to have something to plea bargain with.
KeyZOid