Yes, David, I assume he is free and clear because the military prosecutors, being just as honor-bound as the military witnesses called in such trials, dismissed the case upon becoming convinced not only that there was insufficient evidence of guilt but that Lance Corporal Tatum, in fact, was innocent.

Assuming it is true that the charges were dismissed “with prejudice” (which has the same double-jeopardy effect as an acquittal), the prosecutors must have been persuaded of his innocence. After all, they could — regardless of whether Tatum agreed or disagreed — have dismissed the charges “without prejudice.” Such a disposition would have no jeopardy effect; meaning that if, in the course trying other defendants, new evidence emerged that Tatum was guilty, prosecutors could re-charge him. That is the safe course, and it is the one prosecutors take when there is any doubt about someone’s complicity. But when you become convinced that someone is innocent, the honorable thing to do is drop the charges with prejudice, not hedge your bets.

I am not trying to give David a hard time. It’s just that, as a long time Justice Department prosecutor and someone who never served in the military, I am a great admirer of the honor of the military, which runs through its justice system like it runs through its culture. There is no cultural parallel in civilian life. (When I ran the satellite U.S. attorney’s office in upstate New York, I was privileged to supervise the JAGs when they occasionally had to appear in civilian federal court in White Plains in connection with felonies committed on the grounds at West Point.)

Prosecutors don’t have to dismiss charges with prejudice — even if they’re conviced of someone’s innocence, they can always hedge their bets. Yet the military prosecutors do dismiss the charges because it’s the right thing to do. Theoretically, this means the former defendant, now unconcerned about legal jeopardy, would be free to slant his testimony at any future trial to favor his comrades-in-arms. Yet, that would be a violation of the honor code and it is simply assumed that no Marine would do that. A Marine will testify truthfully — not for or against anyone.

I don’t mean to turn this into some kind of utopia that it’s not. I just greatly admire the assumption of honor, which presumes everyone will do the right thing and thus makes it easier for everyone to do the right thing.