What goes here?

Further to the conversation on disposition of criminal charges involving military personnel, FoxMedia28 reports , what I will class as a case of concurrent jurisdiction.

A Bryan County man pled guilty in federal court for attempting to persuade a minor to engage in sex.

Michael Wilson, 37, of Richmond Hill, Ga., pled guilty to attempted coercion of a minor to engage in sexual activity. The charge carries a possible sentence of up to life in prison, along with substantial financial penalties and a minimum of five years of supervised release after completion of the prison sentence.

At the end of the piece, the report observes that,

He is also facing military charges, including seven violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 120(b), Rape and Sexual Assault of a Child. These charges are pending and relate to multiple minor victims, according to officials.

U. S. military law basically accepts the principle that a conviction in a federal court bars a military trial on the same charges and vice versa--a double jeopardy issue.

It can become more complex when the subsequent prosecution is for, what I will call, other charges that are not the same as those in the first conviction. The report here appears to present a case of mixed charging decisions. There can be many reasons for this not necessarily malign. For example, the conviction relates to a single victim while the pending military case refers to multiple victims with much more serious allegations. It would be interesting to know what motivated the split charging decision--perhaps we'll find out as the military prosecution proceeds.

One simple answer may be the involvement of the accused's wife in the whole sordid affair.  See here. The Google seems to show a likely military person (and a possible reason for split prosecutions), but we will not be posting that until there is certainty we have the right individual.