Prior Cases

We work for you–not the Government

Our uniform is a suit and tie, not the “club” uniform

Therefore, we can do what a military defense counsel either can’t or won’t

United States v. Gilmet (2023) is an example of why.

Then in 2024, Secretary of the Army Susan Wormurth relieved from duty the Lead Special Trial Counsel because of statements he had made while serving as a Army Regional Defense Counsel. The statements were made to Trial Defense Service lawyers he was supervising.

Also

A 2024 GAO Report to the Committee on the Armed Services, House of Representatives tells you all you need to know to justify hiring an experienced military defense law firm to represent you at court-martial.

“Senior officials from each service also raised concerns about the newly established Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) and the likelihood that it will exacerbate issues of inexperience within certain litigation positions. OSTC experience standards, coupled with the limited number of litigators who meet these requirements, will likely force the services to rely on inexperienced litigators to serve as defense counsel. The focus on OSTC experience standards could lead to a potentially significant imbalance in the experience levels of defense and prosecution assigned to litigate the same case.“

The cases on this page are the most recent. You can find older cases at these two links which show the depth and breadth of our experience as military defense counsel.

Court-Martial (2) and Court-Martial (1)

The cases listed here are real examples of our work. Below are real cases we have defended recently. They are examples only. Every case is different because of the facts and the evidence. We can’t guaranteei a specific result in a case because that is unethical according to the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

There are many that we have been able to stop before the case even gets to the court-martial stage.

• Assistance with Family Advocacy Program allegations (typically domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual assault). In several cases we have been able to show that the male enlisted member was the victim and wrongfully accused.
• Assistance with law enforcement interrogations and investigations (Army CID, AF OSI, CGIS, NCIS). For example, in one case we were able to establish that our male officer client was actually himself the victim, and similarly for a male enlisted Soldier.
• Assistance with commander’s investigations (JAGMAN, AR 15-6, Commander’s Inquiry).

Career saved

U.S. v. CW2, Washington, D.C. An Army Chief Warrant Officer is accused of sexually molesting his sons during an ongoing custody dispute with his ex-wife. She also claimed he was not paying his on child support. The client’s career was put on hold during a lengthy CID investigation. We investigated the case along with military defense counsel and showed the ex-wife’s motives for the false report. In part, there was a civil case in which the civilian judge questioned the ex-wife’s testimony. As a result of this and other information provided to CID by us, the CID found no probable cause and the Army dismissed the case. The client’s career is back on track.

Result: No Federal Conviction, No Titling, No Dishonorable Discharge, No Sex Offender Registration–Career Preserved.

Negotiations never stop for the best result

U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Knox, Kentucky. A Soldier was charged with the anal sexual assault of another Soldier along with battery. He retained Cave & Freeburg, LLP. After lengthy litigation and motions and preparation the government agreed at trial to a guilty plea for only a misdemeanor battery!

Result: Not Guilty of All Sexual Assault Charges, No Sex Offender Registration, No Dishonorable Discharge, No Punitive Discharge.

Advocacy at the Article 32 can still work

OSTC: U.S. v. O-6, Fort Belvoir, Virginia An Army Colonel is accused of communicating death threats, strangulation and other acts of alleged domestic violence against his wife and son. The officer’s career is put on hold and court-martial charges are preferred against him. Cave & Freeburg, LLP is retained and a thorough investigation before the Article 32 preliminary hearing helpful information. At the hearing, the defense arguments both against probable cause for some of the charges and for dismissing the case considering the interests of all involved and allowing the client to retire. Eventually, the Army dismisses the court-martial charges!

Result: Charges Dismissed. No Federal Conviction, No Dishonorable Discharge, Retirement Preserved.

• It has been several years since Congress changed the Article 32 from a hearing at which the defense could get discovery helpful to the defense and could raise defenses against “baseless charges.” Those changes make it harder to “win” at the Article 32 hearing. That said, we still try and succeed.

Thorough preparation for cross-examination is a must

U.S. v. O-5, United States Army, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C. An Army Lieutenant Colonel is accused by his Lieutenant Colonel ex-wife of domestic violence in the midst of a custody dispute. Cave & Freeburg, LLP, is retained and Mr. Nathan Freeburg undertakes an extensive investigation and pretrial litigation practice to shape the trial. Finally, at a General Court-Martial, Mr. Freeburg uses thorough cross-examinations of the alleged victim and the responding paramedics and law enforcement in front of a very senior Army officer panel and finally the client is acquitted!

Result: Full Acquittal on All Charges. No Federal Conviction, No Dismissal, Retirement Preserved.

Preparation and advocacy at the Article 32

U.S. v. O-4, Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia. A Marine Major is accused of communicating threats, strangulation and other acts of alleged domestic violence. After a long investigation, the client’s retirement is put on hold and court-martial charges are preferred against him. Cave & Freeburg, LLP is retained and Mr. Freeburg investigates the case before the Article 32 preliminary hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Freeburg argues both against probable cause for some of the charges and against prosecuting the case considering the interests of all involved. Eventually, the Marine Corps dismisses the court-martial charges!

Result: Charges Dismissed. No Federal Conviction, No Dishonorable Discharge, Retirement Preserved.

We know about computer forensics

U.S. v. E-5, United States Air Force. An Air Force Staff Sergeant is accused of the possession of CP and several misdemeanor level charges, facing fifteen years in prison. The airman retains Cave & Freeburg for the court-martial charges. At trial, Mr. Freeburg was able to show through cross-examination of the government’s digital forensic experts that there was not evidence of knowing possession of CP. Consequently, an enlisted panel acquitted the airman of the possession of CP and only convicted him of grabbing a person’s wrists and destroying a phone. He was sentenced to be reduced from E-5 to E-4 and twenty days of confinement.

Result: Not Guilty of All CP Charges, No Sex Offender Registration, No Punitive Discharge.

U.S. v. E.R., District Court, Eastern District of Virginia. A Marine E-4 was arrested and investigated by NCIS for possession and distribution of Child P. As we geared up to defend him at court-martial, the U. S. Attorney decided that the case would be prosecuted in district court where the potential punishments can be higher. Once indicted and arraigned we were able to obtain discovery. After a detailed thorough evaluation of the discovery we recommended a pretrial agreement which was accepted. We then prepared a detained robust sentencing package for the U.S. PreSentence Report and a compwlling Sentencing Memorandum from us. At sentencing, the judge sentenced the client to a below guideline sentence of five years for the distro of CP (this is the mandatory minimum that must be adjuged) and 12 months, to run concurrent, for possession of an unregistered silencer. The judge also waived payment of fines. And, the judge, unlike at court-martial, delayed the client’s reporting to prison until early January–she said so that he could have time over the holidays with his family.

Sometimes you have to consider a deal

U.S. v. E-7, United States Army, Fort Drum, New York. A retirement-eligible Army Sergeant First Class is accused by his ex-wife of sexual assault, surreptitiously recording their sex life and domestic violence, along with various other allegations and even places the client into pretrial confinement! The Soldier retains Cave & Freeburg for the court-martial charges. Mr. Freeburg exhaustively investigates the case, files motions to shape the battlefield and exposes how the bitter ex-wife had fabricated or exaggerated parts of her story. Rather than risk taking all of the allegations to trial, the government agrees to a plea deal, dismissing all sex-related charges. The Soldier is sentenced to time served and a rank reduction.

Result: Not Guilty of All Sexual Assault and Sex Charges, No Sex Offender Registration, No Dishonorable or Bad Conduct Discharge, Retirement Preserved.

Thorough pretrial preparation pays off

U.S. v. E-7, United States Marine Corps, Quantico Marine Corps Base, Virginia. A Gunnery Sergeant is accused of making five false official statements about his relationship with a foreign national. Cave & Freeburg, LLP, is retained and Mr. Freeburg investigates the case and files several successful motions to produce necessary witnesses and shape the trial. At trial, Mr. Freeburg makes strong points for innocence through cross examination of the government witnesses, calls a variety of character witnesses to talk about the GySgt’s stellar career and then wraps up the defense in closing argument. The panel only takes forty-five minutes to issue a Not Guilty verdict!

Result: Not Guilty of All Charges, No Federal Conviction, No Punitive Discharge, Retirement Preserved.

Yes, you can vindicate your rights at court-martial

U.S. v. O-5, Germany–charges dismissed! The client was accused of violating a protective order and obstructing justice by contacting his wife and children. After charges were referred to trial a motion was made for the military judge to declare the military protective order illegal. The military judge agreed that the military protective order was unlawful because it interferred with the client’s constitutional rights without having a valid military purpose. This situation of MPOs while there is an ongoing divorce, separation, or child custody issues is not uncommon. All charges were dismissed as a result of the motion.

No trial, no federal conviction, no dismissal from the service.

There are times when the client must testify

June 6, 2023. Not guilty on all charges. An Air Force Senior Master Sergeant was accused of indecently exposing himself to a hotel front desk clerk. There were several successful pretrial motions to produce necessary witnesses for the defense, to exclude evidence, and shape the trial. Having decided the client’s testimony would give value added, he was well prepared to give honest and truthful testimony. That along with some damaging cross-examination of the prosecution case resulted in a very quick Not Guilty finding by a panel of members (jury). Because of the not guilty finding there is no federal conviction, no sex offender registration, and his retirement preserved.

• We always prepare the client as if he/she will testify as the case progresses. Even if it is unlikely the client will testify–preparation is still required.

May 24, 2023, U.S. v. O-3, United States Coast Guard, Washington, District of Columbia. A Coast Guard Lieutenant is accused of multiple orders violations for statements made on internal communications. General court-martial charges are preferred and the officer retains Cave & Freeburg, LLP. Mr. Freeburg investigates the case and negotiates with the Coast Guard prosecutors. As a result of the negotiations, the Coast Guard agrees to a resignation with a general under honorable conditions characterization instead of a court-martial.