We represent clients with all manner of UCMJ allegations. Over the past years our emphasis in court-martial trials and appeals has been with cases and issues involving Military Police, Prisoners & Detainees, Sexual Offenses, Computer Related crimes. We have also had success in the Security Clearance arena. In each instance we have worked hard with the military lawyer or military lawyers to put forward a team effort.
———————————————————————
Administrative/Security Clearance/Criminal Investigations: (Note: while the cases listed here are examples each case is different. A success in one case is no guarantee of success in another, even though they might seem to be similar cases.)
Executive Officer, USS IOWA (BB61) during the investigation after the turret explosion.
Navy 0-8 initially investigated for very serious offenses.
Navy 0-7 Joint Ethics Regulation issues.
Navy 0-6 commanding officer charged with negligent grounding of a vessel.
Commodore charged with negligence resulting in death and injuries during a Close-In-Weapons System exercise.
Represented/advised several Navy personnel who were Anthrax refusers.
Army O – 3 – Gen. Off. Article 15. Charge dismissed at hearing.
Army Nat’l Guard E – 8 – Gen. Off. Article 15. Charge dismissed at hearing.
Army Chief, and a CPT retained on promotion list.
Navy O-6, regained TS/SCI clearance and access after DOHA administrative judge hearing and PSAB review.
Army O-3, success with DASEB and retention on the promotion list.
Navy O-3E found guilty at NJP of DWI. Then processed for administrative separation based on misconduct. In this case we did what neither the command or the defense counsel had done. We consulted with an expert. Based on that expert’s review we were able to show that the .BAC, reported as 0.145 should have been reported as 0.0145. Based on that “new” evidence, the Board for NO misconduct, and the LT was returned to duty.
Navy O-6, suspected of communicating threats, email stalking, and orders violations. Non-punitive letter of reprimand, and retirement in grade.
USMC O-5 ordered to appear before a retirement grade determination board based on allegations of spouse abuse. Allowed to retire in his current grade.
Civilian contractor security clearance case: SOR alleged use of drugs (marijuana, heroin, cocaine) over a period of time. Clearance granted after a DOHA hearing. We presented evidence of good character, changed life-style, rehabilitation.
———————————————————————–
MILITARY JUSTICE, examples of Military UCMJ Litigation Experience: (Note: each case is different. A success in one case is no guarantee of success in another, even though the facts might seem similar at a first look. No lawyer can ethically or realistically guarantee a particular result in a criminal case. Also, the definition of a good outcome is different depending on the case. In one case it might be a lesser sentence than expected, in another it might be acquittal on the more serious charges but still result in a conviction and sentence for less serious charges, in another the case might start as a court-martial but end up in the administrative process. From time to time we’ve been hired to do damage control. No lawyer ought to represent they have never lost a case or similar puffery. The cases listed below are representative of the types of cases worked on in the past.
United States v. Army E-1. Client one of 13 accused of mutiny, kidnapping, multiple assaults, and property damage at the Maximum SHU, USDB, Leavenworth. Prosecution took the position that he started the mutiny and was a ringleader. Plead not guilty to all charges. Found not guilty of kidnapping and an assault. Sentenced to five years confinement. Military judge gave nine months Article 13 credit. In addition, judge took into account other practices post mutiny that were not Article 13, but were “almost” UCI, and gave two years confinement less than he would of. Another inmate who helped start the mutiny and assaults plead guilty to all charges. He was sentenced to 15 years confinement, which was reduced to eight years with a PTA.
United States v. Army E-5 (update). Client initially accused of rape and sexual assaults on a military spouse and an indecent act on a Soldier. After Article 32, and shortly before trial the complaining witnesses to the rape came forward to “tell the truth,” and confessed they’d lied — there was no rape. Summary court-martial on the unrelated indecent act (sentenced to 15 days restriction). Aspects of this case and another case of mine (Walton) are reported here and here.
United States v. Army E-7. Initially convicted of BAH fraud in excess of $132K and associated charges; sentenced to a BCD and six months confinement. New trial ordered by the appeals court based on newly discovered evidence. At new trial convicted of attempted fraud in excess of $500.00; sentenced to RIR to E-6, $1000.00 forfeiture per month for two months.
United States v. Velez. This case required extensive assistance from a forensic crime scene perspective as well as a forensic pyschologist and a forensic psychiatrist. The R.C.M. 706 board found a “brief psychotic episode” but not major. The defense experts found a major mental defect. However, neither rose to the level of an affirmative defense of insanity on the charges to which Velez plead guilty to. The prosecution dismissed a premeditated murder charge. In this case the defense had made a PTA offer of 20 years in February 2010, and an offer of 25 years in June of 2010 – both of which were rejected. The prosecution came to the defense in early 2011 with a request for an offer of 28 years.
United States v. Air Force E-5: Rape. In this case we were able to mount an aggressive defense at the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. Subsequently all charges were dismissed.
United States v. Coast Guard E-3: Allegations of aggravated sexual assault and two other sexual assaults on one complaining witness (CW) and sexual assault on another CW. Contested enlisted members.
United States v. Army E-4. Initially this case began as an Article 32, UCMJ, case, with allegations of multiple aggravated assaults, wilful discharge of a firearm, property damage, multiple communications of threats. Initially we were able to convince the convening authority that the case should be handled at special court-martial. Then we were able to get a pretrial agreement which limited any confinement to eight months. After entering mixed pleas we presented a compelling sentencing case from the Soldiers prior company and battalion commander and platoon sergeant and his parents. The primary extenuation and mitigation evidence was excessive alcohol use incident to a return from combat. The prosecution asked the military judge to sentence the Soldier to the maximum of 12 months confinement, a bad conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and forfeitures. The military judge sentenced the Soldier to 103 days confinement (equal to the pretrial confinement credit) and reduction to E-3.
United States v. Navy E-4: Initially an investigation for misuse of the ship’s computers and networks this turned into a child pornography case. During the preparation for trial we were able to turn the NCIS computer forensics examiner into a more defense friendly witness. This happened because he knew and saw my expert expert sitting there listening to him. Ultimately the client was found not guilty of possession and distribution of child pornography alleged under both Article 134 (GoD and SD) and 18 U. S. Code §2252A(5)(a)(b).
United States v. USMC E-6: Found not guilty by members after a contested trial of sexual assaults with junior Marines: aggravated sexual assault (rape) and wrongful sexual contact (indecent assault) on a second complaining witness. The rape allegation arose when the complaining witness was herself pending court-martial for drinking under age, fraternization and adultery with the accused, and immediately after she’d attended mandatory sexual assault training. Prior to the sexual assault training she’d told friends and investigators that she went out with the accused knowing that sex might happen, that she’d not had alcohol because she’d been carded at the restaurant, that she loved the accused, that she went with him to WalMart with the intention of buying “protection,” and that she’d have sex with him again if she could, and actually met up with the accused again a few days after the first consensual sex. While pending a potential court-martial she attended mandatory sexual assault training and was given the road-map on how to complain. Not surprisingly her own court-martial for fraternization did not go anywhere.
United States v. Army E-5: This was the last of seven related cases at Fort Bragg. The group was initially charged with voluntary manslaughter under Article 119, UCMJ. Here the client ultimately plead guilty at SPCM to an assault and battery. He was sentenced to a one paygrade reduction and 30 days hard labor without confinement. Here is an interesting article about one of the co-accused, United States v. Boyle, which gives a flavor of the overall case. (It was announced in late September that Boyle’s sentence was reduced.)
United States v. Army E-8: This was an Army TCS Task Force/TDY prosecution. After the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation charges were ultimately referred to a BCD special court-martial. Pretrial litigation resulted in some charges being merged on multiplicity grounds, and some limits being placed on the prosecution evidence. During trial the judge deferred ruling on a R.C.M. 917 motion to dismiss after the prosecution rested. After the Members entered findings the military judge then took up the issue of which charges if any should be dismissed. Using the analysis from United States v. Griffith, 27 M.J. 42 (C.M.A. 1988), the military judge dismissed a substantial portion of the charges: a part of a conspiracy charge, a false official statement charge, the two frauds against the government charges, and reduced the alleged larceny from over $500.00 to “some amount.” The Members of understandably seemed a little shocked and confused. Ultimately they gave a sentence of 90 days confinement, reduction to E-6, and forfeitures of pay for six months. There was no BCD and no fine, so this 24 year veteran will be eligible to retire.
United States v. Navy E-7: The client had been about to pin on WO2 rank when the investigation began into alleged child molestation charges. He had confessed to his wife some years ago and she did nothing. However, the marriage fell apart and he again confessed to his wife. At this point the client became a serial confessor — local police, NCIS, CPS, FAP, to anyone who would listen. At the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation we were able to convince the IO that there was no rape, and that two or three of the indecent acts charges were uncorroborated. The CA in the referral decision agreed not to refer a rape charge.
United States v. Trew, 68 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2010): This case began for me when the client first contacted me about an ongoing NCIS investigation. Against my advice he talked with NCIS and made admissions. Subsequently he was prosecuted. At the trial we were successful in having the military judge exclude certain of the admissions to NCIS because there was no corroboration of them as required by Mil. R. Evid. 304(g). Subsequently, the actions of the prosecution and the military judge lead to an “ambiguous” guilty finding. We litigated this case to try and avoid a sex offender registration situation, which we were able to do. On appeal all the charges were dismissed with prejudice, which means now there is no conviction either.
United States v. Marine E-2: Possession and distribution of CP via Limewire. Negotiated a PTA sentence cap of 12 months, sentenced to 24 months. As a result of a post-trial clemency package the CA reduced the DD to a BCD and approved an additional two months of suspended confinement.
United States v. Navy E-5: Here the client was accused with having sexual intercourse with a person under 16 (15 years and 11 months at the time), false official statement to the CO about the girls whereabouts, and endangering the health and welfare of the girl by removing her from her parental care and out of state. After a vigorous defense presentation at the Article 32, the IO, recommended SCM. The case has been disposed of at summary court-martial. A determination of whether or not the client will be processed for administrative separation is pending.
United States v. AF E-5: 20 months ago the OSI began investigating the client as “the biggest drug dealer on base.” Ultimately, all the OSI could come up with was a CW who was able to obtain a single Ritalin pill, and several co-accused’s who testified to diverse uses of Ritalin over a three month period, a single distribution of a Ritalin pill, and huffing nitrous oxide about five times. Thus the command changed it’s mind from an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, and referred the charges to a SPCM. The client was sentenced to 60 days confinement, 20 days HLWC, reduction to E-3, and forfeiture of $750.00 x 4. Indications are that the client will be separated with a general discharge.
United States v. Navy E-6: Based on our quick reaction to the report of investigation client was well prepared with an outline and defense to charges of sexual harassment and sexual assault made by a subordinate’s wife. Client was well prepared to present his case to the DRB who recommended no action and XOI that recommended no action. Case was dismissed without any adverse action by CO after reviewing the report of investigation and the client’s well-presented outline and package regarding his defense.
United States v. Navy E-5: This was an interesting case of a Navy Reservist accused of fraudulently getting tuition assistance funds over a two year period. In order to prosecute him he was recalled to active duty under Article 2, UCMJ, for prosecution. Because it was a GCMCA recall and not secretarial no confinement could be adjudged. Ultimately the case was disposed of through Article 15, administrative separation, and repayment of funds.
United States v. USMC E-7: Recruiter malpractice charges dropped, relief for cause letter rejected by HQMC and revoked.
United States v. E-4: Possession of child pornography. Disposed of at Article 15, with an OTH administrative separation.
United States v. USA E-6: A single allegation of spouse assault. After a contested members trial the client was found guilty. We litigated the trial based on self-defense because of his chronic (Iraq war related) PTSD and other special circumstances of the case. The military judge excluded use of the words or diagnosis of PTSD on the merits, but allowed testimony about the symptoms and effects. This was relevant to the subjective element of the self defense defense which talks about a persons “emotional state.” The military judge would not allow the PTSD on the objective prong of whether the client feared harm (which didn’t matter, because he’s already been assaulted). A charge of violating a general order for exceeding an alcohol level of 0.1 was dismissed. During a suppression motion on the admissibility of breath tests at Camp Casey, Korea, the military judge ruled that the tests were not conducted properly in accordance with regulations and excluded the breath test evidence. The client was sentenced to 15 days confinement and a two pay-grade reduction.
United States v. USMC E-5: Multiple allegations of spouse assault and obstructing justice. After a contested members trial the client was found guilty of two assaults (to which he’d confessed), but not guilty of others, including the obstruction of justice. His sentence was one pay-grade reduction and 45 days confinement. Convening authority is considering a clemency request that would disapprove the findings and sentence in order to allow retention in the USMC.
United States v. USA O-3: Charges of perjury at a BOI, adultery, and mishandling of classified materials dismissed prior to Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.
United States v. USAR O-4: Charges of BAH fraud dismissed and resolved with GOMR.
United States v. ANG O-3: General court-martial charges dismissed during pretrial litigation in – one of many – alleged BAH fraud for activated and mobilized Reserve and Guard Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines.
United States v. USN E-4. A case involving allegations of forcible sodomy, sexual assault. The charges were dismissed after the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation.
United States v. USMC E-4 (Okinawa): A case involving the use, possession, and distribution of “Spice” (Salvia) and possession of child pornography. This was a fully contested case with mixed findings. All child pornography cases are unfortunate. But in this case everyone seems to agree that the client was “curious,” and not “a pervert.” Under the law however, curiosity is not a defense.
United States v. USA E-5: A spousal rape case. Disposed of at SPCM, IAW PTA.
United States v. USMC E-4 (Okonawa): A child pornography case involving over 66,000 images and involvement in molestations. In this case the client plead guilty for a 10 year PTA. The prosecution argued for a sentence of 18 years, the military judge gave a sentence of eight years.
United States v. USA E-5 (Okinawa): Not guilty of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assaults, housebreaking.
United States v. USMC E-7 (Okinawa): Not guilty of rape, false official statements, adultery.
United States v. Army E-8: SPCM for use of cocaine. Negotiated to Article 15, where CG imposed $200 per month times two months as a forfeiture. Allowed to retire in grade (removed from SGM promotion list).
United States v. Marine E-6 (Okinawa): Three page charge sheet of sexual harassment, indecent assault, and lying to investigators.
United States v. Savala, NMCCA 200800818, 2010 CCA LEXIS 9 (N-M. C. Ct. Crim. App. January 28, 2010) pet. granted. The appeal of this rape/unlawful entry case is now pending at the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. At trial the military judge refused to permit cross-examination of the complaining witness about a prior rape allegation she had made. The prosecution however had the complaining witness testify in a way that brought up this prior allegation. The judge refused to change his rulings. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals set aside some unrelated charges and agreed with our appeal that the judge was wrong. However, the court used what is called the “harmless error” rule to say that the conviction could stand but that the client could have a new sentencing hearing. The CAAF will hear this case in December 2010 and decide whether or not the client gets a new trial.
United States v. Marine E-6: Prosecuted for GBH to one of his Marines, two specifications of maltreating Marines, three specifications of pointing a Condition 1/Condition 4 rifle at his Marines at various times, and false statement to NCIS. Found guilty of assault and battery vice GBH (there were four witnesses); false official statement; flagging a Marine with a Condition 4 rifle, and maltreatment based on the flagging and assault. He was sentenced to 30 days confinement, and RIR to E3.
United States v. Army SF E-7(P): Not guilty of sodomy and indecent acts with 8 year old daughter; guilty of an indecent act with teenage babysitter. Sentenced to 179 days, RIR to E-5.
United States v. Navy E-5: Initially investigated for rape, kidnap, assaults, and false official statements; prosecuted for assault, kidnap, and adultery. Sentenced to RIR to E-3, and three months confinement.
United States v. Army E-6: This case involved a Soldier with two Art. 15′s, and a civilian conviction for domestic violence. After an administrative discharge board, the Board recommended separation with a General Discharge.
United States v. Army E-7: Case involved an HIV positive Army E-7. He had become HIV positive many years OK on a mission. He was accused of aggravated assault during an 18 month adulterous relationship with another Soldier, violating Art. 92, and of course the adultery. Charges were withdrawn from GCM and referred to a bare-back SPCM as a result of pre-trial negotiations. He was sentenced to Reduction in Rank to E-4.
United States v. Navy E-6: This case began as an NJP refusal for falsifying an SF86, government credit card misuse, and false official statements. Charges were referred to special court-martial, but then withdrawn. The case was then referred to an administrative discharge board, with the addition of a DUI, seeking an OTH. The Board found misconduct as to the SF86, but no misconduct as to the other allegations. Client was recommended for retention. Update: not satisfied, the command took the case to the Bureau, and the Bureau ordered an Honorable Discharge. (This is not unusual in Navy cases. Besides never waiving the right to an administrative board, you have to contest the merits of the separation, not just the characterization.)
United States v. Army E-5: Not guilty of rape.
United States v. Army E-7: Convicted, after contested trial, of stealing over $65,000.00, in BAH, adultery and false statement offenses — no punitive discharge, and 179 confinement.
United States v. Army E-5: Convicted after contested trial of multiple allegations of sexual harassment with multiple victims, and indecent assault; no confinement and no punitive discharge.
United States v. Navy E-6: Initially charged at Special court-martial with racial and extremist activity on the internet (MySpace account site), charges were withdrawn a few weeks from the trial date. A “contested” administrative board resulted in a General Discharge.
United States v. USAF (E-7): Not guilty to all charges of bribery, extortion, kick-backs, graft, theft, false official statements. This case took 3.5 years, and might be considered as fraud, waste, and abuse, in the prosecution.
United States v. USN (E-3): Possession of CP; separation in lieu of trial.
United States v. USMC E-7 (E-8P): Recruiter accused of sexual misconduct with Poolee, found Not Guilty — contested enlisted members trial.
United States v. Army E-6: SSG accused of burglary, attempted rape, indecent assault. Resolved by a separation in-lieu of trial.
United States v. Army E-6: SSG accused of diverse (allegedly 40-50) forcible sodomies, sexual harassment of two soldiers, indecent assault, indecent exposure, lying to AR15-6 investigator and CID: found guilty of consensual sodomy, indecent acts, sexual harassment, and lying to investigators. Sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge only. This was an Enlisted Members case. The issue here, which likely helped get the BCD, was the lying. It’s not always the crime itself, but the attempt to cover-up that gets the increased punishment. Read this in conjunction with my guidance that it’s NEVER in the service-members best interest to waive the right to silence (at least until you have talked with an attorney).
United States v. Army E-4: A combat deployed Soldier accepted Article 15, for disobedience of an order, and assault on a senior NCO. We helped prepare his “presentation,” including outlining his defenses. At hearing, the charges were dismissed. This is an excellent example of the cases where we have been able to assist at Article 15, proceedings.
United States v. USAF E-6: Accused of physical assault on teenage son, and sexual assault on teenage daughter — charges withdrawn day before Motions session.
United States v. USAF E-3: SrA TDY to Incirlik AB, Turkey, found not guilty by enlisted members of rape.
United States v. USN (MA-3): Accused of stealing a car on base. After a contested trial, found guilty of wrongful appropriation: sentenced to RIRx1, Rest, HLWC, and $500.00×3.
United States v. USA O-5: Possession and distribution of CP. Accused of two instances of distributing CP; receiving CP; possessing CP; misuse of government computer; lying to investigators. Mixed findings, and excellent sentence (no confinement, no dismissal).
United States v. USAF E-4: Client found not guilty of rape and forced anal sodomy.
United States v. USN E-5: Multiple allegations of physical spouse abuse over a two year period.
United States v. USAF E-6(P): This was an Operation Falcon CP case, in which ICE targeted the credit card companies involved as well as the sellers of CP and buyers. A number of important lessons were learned about how easy identity theft is on the internet, the perils of visiting pornography websites, and the complications of re-formatted hard-drives and using software such as Evidence Eliminator (which doesn’t actually eliminate all the evidence).
United States v. Army E-3: Rape, threat to kill commander, theft of drugs, damage to government property, and multiple 92′s. Sentence limited to 30 months. In this case there were several confessions; yet it took the members almost 13 hours to decide the findings, and another 7 hours to decide sentence. This is a case where — once again — CID “inadvertently” used the “I know he was lying” ploy at trial; and also the civilian Detective used the word “polygraph.” It’s amazing how often experienced investigators inadvertently blurt out that “he was lying, etc.”
United States v. USN E-8: Naval Academy case in which the sentence was a letter of reprimand, because of improper relationship with a midshipman.
United States v. USN E-3: Accused of intent to damage an MH53E #2EAPS/#2engine with FOD (a large rock) and endanger the lives of crew — sentenced to 9 months confinement at special court-martial.
United States v. USMC E-5: Letter of reprimand for importing a war trophy (pistol) in violation of GO#1.
United States v. Army E-5: Not guilty of rape and housebreaking; guilty of indecent assault and sodomy; sentenced to BCD and three months confinement.
United States v. Navy E-5 (a Recruiter): Rape of DEP, and DEP’s sister. Guilty as to DEP, not guilty as to sister. Sentenced to 30 months confinement. Paroled early.
United States v. Marine (E-2): Marine not guilty of communicating a threat, assault, and reckless endangerment.
United States v. Army E-5: Indecent assault, unlawful entry, and false official statements, resolved through administrative measures.
United States v. Navy E-6: Male sailor prosecuted for forcible sodomy, indecent assault, and fraternization with five male sailors. Acquitted of all but two.
United States v. Marine (E-5): Marine charged with forcible sodomy and indecent assault of another male Marine. Guilty at SPCM for indecent assault; sentenced to 270 days / BCD. Recently received clemency.
United States v. Army E-3 (Ft. Carson): Charged with rape and forcible sodomy of his 13 yo step-sister. Found guilty of carnal knowledge and consensual sodomy. Sentenced to 91 (91 ÷ 7 = 13 weeks) days confined / DD.
United States v. USAF E-7: Excellent result in multiple allegations related to “inappropriate relationships.”
United States v. Navy E-6: An appellate case where the conviction and sentence set-aside on appeal; although a retrial may be conducted.
United States v. Marine E-1: Spousal rape (not guilty), spousal assaults (not guilty), kidnapping, various associated military offenses.
United States v. USAF E-4: Computer CP.
United States v. USAF E-6: Spousal rape, and rape of fiancée.
United States v. USAF E-4: Use of cocaine, marijuana, percocet. Convicted of the Percocet only; and no confinement or forfeitures adjudged by enlisted members. Later Note: Air Force Clemency & Parole Board has suspended the Bad Conduct Discharge, conditioned on one year of good behavior.
United States v. USAF E-2 (Qatar): Not guilty of drug possession, theft, and alcohol offenses.
United States v. Army O-2 (Baghdad): Theft and misuse of prescription medications, theft, dereliction.
United States v. Army E-2 (Korea): Not guilty of carnal knowledge, sodomy, indecent acts/liberties with 13 yr. old.
United States v. USMC E-4: Rape of spouse.
United States v. Army WO: Murder of Iraqi military officer.
United States v. USMC E-6: Rape.
United States v. Army E-7: Internet solicitation of minor.
United States v. Army (E-5): Indecent assault, sexual harassment, Chap. 10, General Discharge.
United States v. Navy E-6: $5K+ Supply fraud. Withdrawn and referred to SCM forum, retained.
United States v. USMC E-4: 112(a), Not Guilty in enlisted members trial.
United States v. Navy E-4: Indecent acts with child and alcohol related offenses disposed of at NJP.
United States v. Army E-7 (Iraq): Murder, assault, false official statements.
United States v. USAF E-4: Insurance fraud.
United States v. Army O-3: Indecent assault, sexual harassment. Disposed of at Article 15, after Article 32 completed.
United States v. Army E-5 (Iraq): Negligent discharge, orders violation, disrespect.
United States v. USMC (E-5): Forcible homosexual sodomy, indecent assault, fraternization.
United States v. Air Force (03) : Fraudulent procurement of commission, false statements, wearing of unauthorized medals.
United States v. Army O-4 (Iraq): Theft and conspiracy to steal. Dismissal disapproved in subsequent clemency action.
United States v. Army E-4 (Iraq): Attempt murder x 7 (118(3)), theft, aggravated assault.
United States v. Army E-6: Computer CP. Additional substantial sentence reduction during clemency and parole process.
United States v. Air Force E-5: Rape and indecent assault; dismissed after Art. 32.
United States v. Army O-4: Fraud of $27,000.00 in flight pay; dismissed after Art. 32.
United States v. Army O-3 (Iraq): EPW and assault issues. Dismissed with LOR, after Art. 32 report.
United States v. USMC (O-3): 112(a) (hemp seed oil); not guilty in trial by Members.
United States v. USAF E-3: Drugs. Parents presence and testimony critical sentencing factor.
United States v. USCG E-4: sexual assault.
United States v. Navy O-5: child sexual abuse, rape, 112a, obstruction of justice, computer crimes.
United States v. USAF E-4 (Malmstrom AFB): indecent acts.
United States v. USMC E-6 (Iwakuni): fraternization, adultery, rape.
United States v. Army O-2 (Iraq): Orders violation, detainee issues.
United States v. Army E-6 (Iraq): Orders violation, detainee issues.
United States v. Army E-5 (Iraq): Orders violation, detainee issues.
United States v. Army E-4 (Camp Zama, JP): Computer crimes.
United States v. Army E-4: Attempted murder and aggravated assault of child. Ultimately the client was sentenced to 8 months confinement, and no discharge was adjudged, for aggravated assault on a child.
United States v. USMC E-6 (Pensacola, FL): Fraternization and adultery.
United States v. Navy E-6: Multiple rapes and a forcible sodomy. Acquittal by Members.
United States v. Army E-6 (JTF Guantanamo Bay, Cuba): Orders violation. Acquittal by Members at trial.
United States v. Air Force E-1 (2d case)(Bolling A.F. Base): Auto theft and auto insurance fraud.
United States v. Army E-7 (Ft. Belvoir): Urinalysis.
United States v. USAF E-5 (Wright-Patt A.F. Base): Theft and fraud under 123.
United States v. Army E-5 (Ft. Rucker): GTC misuse, 123a, fail to pay. Presence of parents and testimony a critical sentencing factor.
United States v. Navy E-5 (San Diego): Theft of postal matter and check forgery.
United States v. Navy E-3 (Yokosoka): Indecent acts w/minor. W/drawn from SPCM, dismissed at NJP.
United States v. Navy E-6 (Sasebo): Forcible sodomy and assault. Mixed findings and good result on sentence.
United States v. USAF E-2(Bolling A.F. Base): Charged with theft of military property and various assaults on law enforcement. Mixed pleas. Acquittal on the not guilty pleas. Presence of six family members was important to the outcome.
United States v. USMC E-6 (Quantico): Charged w/forcible sodomy, mixed findings, no confinement.
United States v. Navy E-6: W/drawn from SPCM, GP at SCM, RIR and forf. one-third x one.
United States v. USMC (02) Officer misconduct: MJ noted that presence and support of family taken into consideration in arriving at sentence.
United States v. Navy E-6: Black-marketing charges w/drawn from court-martial.
United States v. Navy E-4: Premeditated murder.
United States v. USMC E-3): Drug use, distribution, and sale. MJ noted that presence and support of family was helpful in arriving at sentence.
United States v. USAF E-1/II: computer pornography (18 USC 2252A). MJ noted grandmother’s testimony helpful.
United States v. USAF E-3/I: indecent acts w/child.
United States v. Navy E-5: Child sodomy, computer pornography (18 USC 2252A).
United States v. USMC E-4. MJ noted family support helped in deciding sentence.
United States v. Army (E-3): MJ noted mother’s support and testimony helpful.
United States v. USMC (E-2): Drug use, distribution and sale. Tried at SPCM. MJ noted that family support was important when arriving at a sentence.
United States v. USMC (E-4). Drug abuse. MJ noted family support seemed to affect members in deciding sentence.
United States v. Navy (E-4): Multiple drug use and distributions. MJ noted the support of family at trial was crucial to a lesser sentence than might have been warranted.
United States v. USMC (E-5), Charged with Rape, Fraternization, Theft, and False Official statement. Dismissed after Article 32.
United States v. USMC (E-6): Instructor hazing and assault.
United States v. Navy (E-4): Felony-murder (robbery and premeditated murder) of a close Navy friend.
United States v. Navy (E-7). 35 M.J. 149 (C.M.A. 1992), cert. denied, McGuinness v. United States, 507 U.S. 951 (1993). National security case.
United States v. Diraffaele: No. 88 3958 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. March 9, 1990). Premeditated murder, Buffalo, New York, and attempted murder in Norfolk, Va.
United States v. Duncan, 36 M.J. 668 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1992). Charged with premeditated murder by strangulation: convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
United States v. Brown: E-5 charged with mailing (large) box of classified materials to his new duty station. National security case.
United States v. Roberts: Premeditated murder. Stabbing of friend while on a bout of marijuana/PCP/alcohol use.
United States v. Navy E – 5: GCM conviction for conspiracy and theft of military property, while acting as law enforcement officer and using police vehicle. Sentence to BCD, 6 months, RIR to E1, TF. On clemency appeal to CA, BCD and RIR to E4 suspended for three years. On a further note: one year later he’s back at E5. On another note: he recently made Sailor of the Quarter. On another note: recently awarded a Navy Achievement Medal.
United States v. Navy E – 5: Convicted of mailing classified material to a former shipmate, concealing evidence for another.
United States v. Dorman: 58 M.J. 295 (C.A.A.F. 2003).
United States v. Lee ,54 M.J. 285 (C.A.A.F. 2000): Argued for amicus the National Institute of Military Justice. Question of quorum for CCA appellate judges.
United States v. USAF 0-3: Convicted of bigamy, use of false official documents, falsifying immigration related documents.
King v. United States (May 4, 2000): Counsel for, and argued for amicus the National Institute of Military Justice. Writ appeal petition. CAAF All Writs jurisdiction, prejudicial pretrial publicity, and Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
United States v. Weiss, 36 M.J. 224 (1993), aff’d Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994). Challenge to the designation of military trial and appellate judges as violating the Appointments Clause, Article II, U.S. Constitution.
United States v. Jordan. Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, cert. denied Jordan v. United States, 510 U.S. 1177 (1994).
United States v. Smith: 43 M.J. 390 (1996). Members challenge.
United States v. Saylor: 40 M.J. 715 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1994). Case clarified the effect of post-trial misconduct on plea agreements and the procedures required to vacate a suspended sentence.
United States v. Collins: 39 M.J. 739 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1994). Speedy trial issue under UCMJ, Article 10, 10 U.S. Code §810 (pretrial confinement delay). Case helped expand the rule for a showing of prosecutorial “diligence.”.
United States v. Clemons:39 M.J. 865 (N.M.Ct.Crim.App. 1994). BCD not an authorized punishment.
