Search This Blog

Monday, December 24, 2007

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

To all of you and your families, we wish you very happy holidays. Please keep our servicemen and women, and their families, in your thoughts and prayers this holiday season.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Rape Charge and Court-Martial Dropped Against Noncommissioned Officer Represented by Attorney Richard Stevens

This past week, a noncommissioned officer defended by attorney Richard Stevens had the rape charge, and court-martial, he faced dropped by the government. After investigation and witness interviews by the defense, we litigated the Article 32 hearing and exposed the inconsistencies and credibility issues with the claim, the motivations to fabricate and, generally, the weaknesses in the case.

As a result of our investigation and litigation of the pretrial Article 32 hearing, the Article 32 Investigating Officer recommended dropping the case, and that recommendation was followed - the rape allegation and court-martial were dropped by the government. The maximum authorized punishment for a rape conviction would have been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For clients represented/defended by Richard Stevens, that brings to eight, the number of military rape, sexual assault and sexual offense cases in the last couple years which did not result in a court-martial conviction for the government – either because the case was dismissed/dropped or because the client was found not guilty (complete acquittal). Please see previous blog posts for descriptions of those cases.

While these criminal cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.


By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Sunday, November 11, 2007


Happy Veteran's Day!

Service. Sacrifice. Courage. Fortitude. Freedom. Thank you Veterans! Happy Veteran's Day.

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Innocent Man Freed After 22 Years Behind Bars

In 1985, Willie “Pete” Williams was convicted of rape, kidnapping and aggravated sodomy in a Georgia court. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison, and served 22 of those years. All for crimes he didn’t commit. Another innocent man serving time. Now, at 45-years-old, Mr. Williams has been exonerated by DNA evidence, which also was subsequently used to convict the real perpetrator of the crime.

You might see a trend in some of my blog posts?

The full article on this case can be found at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/25/innocence.project/

Mr. Williams is one of 208 wrongly convicted individuals freed by the efforts of the Innocence Project. Of this number, 15 had been sentenced to death.

In Mr. Williams’ case, the conviction was based primarily on mistaken witness identifications. Witness and victim identifications can be some of the most unreliable evidence in any trial, yet identifications are often given significant weight by juries.

According to the CNN story, Barry Scheck, the co-founder of the Innocence Project, said “Mistaken eyewitness identification has long been the single biggest factor in the conviction of innocents. That has got to be important to everybody, because if we can reform identification procedures, it will keep more innocent people out of jail and convict criminals who really commit the crimes."

I encourage you to visit the Innocence Project website (
http://www.innocenceproject.org/) and to read some of my other blog posts on similar topics. Push for reforms in your criminal justice system that will help prevent injustices like these from occurring.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Prosecutor Apologizes 12 Years After Innocent Man Convicted of Rape

In yet another example of why defense attorneys do what we do, Ronald Taylor was released from prison after serving 12 years for a crime (rape) he didn’t commit.

The exoneration stems from the exposure of serious problems within the Houston crime lab. According to a story on
http://www.cnn.com/, an inspector, who formerly worked for the U.S. Justice Department, cited hundreds of “serious and pervasive” flaws in the forensic cases handled by the Houston crime lab.

Mr. Taylor was convicted of rape in 1995 and sentenced to 60 years in prison. The victim picked Mr. Taylor out of a lineup, but apparently admitted she only caught a glimpse of her attacker's face. During his trial, an analyst from the Houston crime lab testified that no body fluids were found on the victim’s bed sheet.

This summer, however, the Innocence Project (
http://www.innocenceproject.org/) paid to have another crime lab retest the bed sheet in question. Semen was found by the new lab, and it matched the DNA of a man already in prison.

In response to this new evidence of Mr. Taylor’s innocence, and the failure of the Houston crime lab, the Harris County District Attorney, Chuck Rosenthal, apologized to Mr. Taylor in court prior to his release from prison, and several council members echoed his sentiments. The full CNN story can be accessed at:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/10/houston.lab.ap/index.html

The full Innocence Project story about the case can be accessed at:

http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/928.php

For some other blog posts about the role of a criminal defense lawyer and the importance of this function to the criminal justice system, please see:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/07/value-of-good-defense-lawyer-you-might.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/06/cost-of-overzealous-prosecution.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/04/200th-dna-exoneration-barry-scheck-and.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-can-you-defend-them-duke-lacrosse.html

Another job well done by the Innocence Project!

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Charitable Organizations Established to Provide Financial Support for Families of Military Members Facing Prosecution for Alleged Crimes Committed in Middle East Combat Operations

Our law firm has recently had the privilege of meeting various members of charitable organizations established to provide financial support for families of military members who are facing prosecution for alleged war crimes and other crimes committed in combat operations in the Middle East.

As civilian defense attorneys who represent military members facing courts-martial and other adverse actions, we know how important it is for our military members to have strong defense legal representation against the governments’ allegations and resources. We also recognize the reality that hiring a civilian defense lawyer is a serious financial commitment.

The organizations identified below were established to raise and provide money toward military defense fees and expenses in cases arising out of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are not members of any of these organizations; we simply provide their links as references for any family seeking such defense attorney funding assistance. Each organization will describe how funds are raised, what criteria must be satisfied to be eligible for any money, etc. Here are some links:

http://www.militarycombatdefensefund.com/
http://www.marinedefensefund.com/index.html
http://www.warrior-fund.org/
http://www.unitedpatriots.org/

The United American Patriots, for example, rely heavily on the support of public donations and participation in fund-raising initiatives. They have little overhead, so a high percentage of the funds they receive go directly toward their stated purpose.

If you or your family member is facing the uncertainty of a military trial or other adverse military action, you should research what organizations may exist that could assist in financing a defense that includes civilian counsel. In such a critical time in a military member’s life, it is comforting to know that organizations do exist that will help pay for strong civilian defense attorney representation.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Monday, October 08, 2007

Chief Prosecutor for Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes/Military Commission Detainee Cases Quits?

Below is an article that recently appeared in the NY Times, written by William Glaberson. It can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/us/nationalspecial3/06gitmo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

October 6, 2007

War-Crimes Prosecutor Quits in Pentagon Clash

By
WILLIAM GLABERSON

In the latest disruption of the Bush administration’s plan to try detainees at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for war crimes, the chief military prosecutor on the project stepped down yesterday after a dispute with a Pentagon official.

It was not clear what effect the departure would have on the problem-plagued effort to charge and try detainees.

The prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis of the Air Force, was to leave his position immediately, a Defense Department spokeswoman said. But the spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith, said officials were working to minimize interruption in the work of the prosecution office, which includes military lawyers supplemented by civilian federal prosecutors.

“The department is taking measures to ensure a prompt and orderly transition to another chief prosecutor without interrupting the key mission of prosecuting war crimes via military commissions,” Ms. Smith said.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Colonel Davis would resign.

The Pentagon’s system of prosecuting suspects has been beset by practical problems and legal disputes that have reached the
Supreme Court. As a result, more than five years after the first terror suspects arrived at Guantánamo Bay, only one detainee’s war-crimes case has been completed, and that was through a plea agreement.

Prosecutors have said they might eventually file charges against as many as 80 of the 330 detainees being held at Guantánamo. Those include so-called high value detainees, 14 men the administration has said include dangerous terrorists who had previously been held in secret
C.I.A. prisons.

Officials have said the prosecutors are working on charges against some of those men, including
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who has said he was the mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Colonel Davis, a career military lawyer, had been in a bitter dispute with Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, who was appointed this summer to a top post in the Pentagon Office of Military Commissions, which supervises the war crimes trial system.

General Hartmann, an Air Force reserve officer who worked as a corporate lawyer until recently, was appointed this summer as the legal adviser to Susan J. Crawford, a former military appeals judge who is the convening authority, a military official who has extensive powers under the military commission law passed by Congress in 2006.

Among other powers, under the law, the convening authority can approve or reject war-crimes charges, make plea deals with detainees and reduce sentences.

People involved in the prosecutions, who spoke on condition of anonymity, have said that General Hartmann challenged Colonel Davis’s authority in August and pressed the prosecutors who worked for Colonel Davis to produce new charges against detainees quickly.

They said he also pushed the prosecutors to frame cases with bold terrorism accusations that would draw public attention to the military commission process, which has been one of the central legal strategies of the Bush administration. In some cases the prosecutors are expected to seek the death penalty.

Through a spokeswoman, General Hartmann declined comment yesterday.

Colonel Davis filed a complaint against General Hartmann with Pentagon officials this fall saying that the general had exceeded his authority and created a conflict of interest by asserting control over the prosecutor’s office. Colonel Davis said it would be improper for General Hartmann to assess the adequacy of cases filed by prosecutors if the general had been involved in the decision to file those cases.

In a statement last week, Colonel Davis said the issue posed a threat to the integrity of the war-crimes process. “For the greater good, Brigadier General Hartmann and I should both resign and walk away or higher authority should relieve us of our duties,” the statement said.

A military official said yesterday that Pentagon officials had sided with General Hartmann in the dispute.

Yesterday, Colonel Davis said he could not discuss the developments. “I’m under direct orders,” he said, “not to comment with the media about the reasons for my resignation or military commissions.”

Gregory S. McNeal, an assistant professor at the Dickinson School of Law at
Pennsylvania State University, said the effort to begin war-crimes trials would probably continue. But Mr. McNeal, who has been a consultant to the military prosecutors, said the questions Colonel Davis raised would be exploited by defense lawyers.

“The last thing the prosecution needs is officials influencing the prosecutions,” he said.

Critics of the administration have argued that the effort to design a military commission system for foreign terror suspects is intended to circumvent the legal protections that detainees would receive if they were charged in civilian courts. Some of those critics said yesterday that the dispute underscored their concerns.

“This is further evidence that the military commission process is completely unraveling,” said J. Wells Dixon, a detainees’ lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York.

“That is endemic,” Mr. Dixon added, “to any system that is made up as you go along.”

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Officer Represented by Frank Spinner Acquitted at Trial by Court-Martial

Recently, an officer client defended by Frank Spinner was found not guilty of the charges and specifications he faced in an overseas court-martial. The client was accused of six total charges and specifications (criminal allegations) of assault consummated by battery upon a commissioned officer and destruction of private property.

The court members (jury) deliberated for approximately 7 hours before delivering the verdict of acquittal. The officer client will now be retroactively promoted in accordance with a promotion that was delayed due to the administrative hold for court-martial, and will receive back pay commensurate with the appropriate date of rank.

While this criminal case was successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Montel Williams Show - Illnesses After Military Anthrax Vaccination

As you saw from my previous blog posts, Kelli Donley (former USAF JAG attorney who was permanently disabled as a result of taking the mandatory military anthrax vaccine) was one of the guests on the Montel Williams show recently. The show addressed the issue of our military members becoming ill after taking the anthrax vaccine. Here is a link to a summary of the show and a video clip from it:

http://www.montelshow.com/show/detail/5194/

Transcripts ($9.95) from the show, "DYING TO SERVE," can be found here:

http://www.transcripts.tv/Welcome.aspx?NetworkID=44

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.
Rape Charge and Court-Martial Dropped Against Noncommissioned Officer Represented by Attorney Richard Stevens

In the last few weeks, a noncommissioned officer defended by attorney Richard Stevens had the rape charge, and court-martial, he faced dropped by the government. Early in the case, the military defense counsel uncovered significant issues regarding the credibility of the alleged victim and her claims. These issues were highlighted at the Article 32 hearing.

After the Article 32 hearing, the defense submitted notice of our intent to continue the investigation of these credibility issues, to involve a forensic expert, and to file motions allowing us to use the information at issue. At that point, the rape allegation and court-martial were dropped by the government. The maximum authorized punishment for a rape conviction would have been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For clients represented/defended by Richard Stevens, that brings to seven, the number of military rape, sexual assault and sexual offense cases in the last couple years which did not result in a court-martial conviction for the government – either because the case was dismissed/dropped or the client was found not guilty (complete acquittal). Please see previous blog posts for descriptions of those cases.

While these criminal cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Sunday, September 02, 2007

A Victim of the Military Anthrax Vaccine – Former USAF JAG Disabled by Anthrax Vaccine to Appear on The Montel Williams Show on Friday, 7 September 2007

You may recall my previous blog post about this show:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/04/former-usaf-jag-disabled-by-anthrax.html

The show is now set to air on Friday, 7 September 2007 and is titled: “Dying to Serve?” You should check your local listings so you don’t miss this important episode. You can also check this link:

http://www.montelshow.com/wheretowatch/

Kelli Donley is a former USAF JAG attorney who was disabled by the military’s anthrax vaccine. This past March, Kelli flew to NY to tape an appearance on The Montel Williams Show, discussing her disability and how it was caused by the military anthrax vaccine. Kelli was diagnosed with Sporadic Spinocerebellar Ataxia and was medically retired from the Air Force.

Kelli's hometown is Beloit, KS. She graduated from Fort Hays State University with a BA in Political Science in 1993, Oklahoma State University with a MA in Political Science in 1995 and Washburn University School of Law with a Juris Doctorate in 1998. She is now medically retired from the Air Force under 100% disability. She lives in Oklahoma City.

Blog Content By: Kelli Donley

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Update On Guantanamo Detainee Litigation

Below are some links that provide an update on the Guantanamo Detainee Litigation, for those who are curious about what is currently happening:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060400188.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/04/AR2007060401117.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,,2095552,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1885238.ece
Below is a link describing the Guantanamo Detainee Litigation, as described by Steve Sady, Chief Deputy Federal Public Defender, Portland, Oregon. It is from the Ninth Circuit Blog:

http://circuit9.blogspot.com/2007/07/guantnamo-update.html

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Friday, August 17, 2007

MILITARY SEX SCANDALS

Another blog post about military rape and sexual cases? Yes, I (attorney Richard Stevens) know that I have already authored several posts on the subject. I just felt this was another post that was worthwhile. I must think it’s worthwhile, because, as a graduate of the University of North Carolina (both undergrad and law school), I am directing you to a publication from Duke University (our rival to the bitter end). But, I digress…

In May 2007, the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy published a volume addressing “Gender, Sexuality and the Military.” That volume can be found at:

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djglp/

This publication includes many interesting articles and perspectives about gender issues in the military, to include issues regarding rape and sexual assault cases in the military. In particular, there is an article entitled “Military Sex Scandals From Tailhook To The Present: The Cure Can Be Worse Than The Disease” by Kingsley R. Browne. That article can be found at:

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?14+Duke+J.+Gender+L.+&+Pol%27y+749

In the article, Mr. Browne looks at various “sex scandals” that have occurred in the military, to include Tailhook, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the Air Force Academy, the case of Bryan Black and the case of Lamar Owens. One of the points he makes is that:

“When (sexual scandals in the military) occur, the typical response has been to label men as "predators" and women as "victims," to impose often draconian punishments, and to increase the amount of diversity and sexual-harassment training.”

“The core lesson that the military and its civilian overseers need to take to heart is this: extraordinary attempts to "help" women ultimately harm their position within the military. Military women are not helped when false charges of sexual assault are overlooked.”

This article is an interesting, and I believe important, read for anyone involved in this issue, including military commands, military prosecutors and military law enforcement and investigative units.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

Links to Anthrax Vaccine Website and Blog

If you have previously read our blog, you are likely aware that we represent those military members who have been harmed by the anthrax vaccine and those who have chosen to refuse to be vaccinated. It is one of the military law issues that I (Richard Stevens) specifically focus on because of our commitment to the welfare of our troops. See, for example:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2007/04/former-usaf-jag-disabled-by-anthrax.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-military-anthrax-vaccinations.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2006/11/military-anthrax-vaccinations-are-they.html

Dr. Meryl Nass is one of the medical doctors who is leading the fight against the mandatory anthrax vaccinations in the military by continuing to expose truths about the program and the vaccine. Dr. Nass’s website and blog addresses are:

http://www.anthraxvaccine.org/

http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/

I provide these links as a helpful reference for those seeking information about the military anthrax vaccine beyond what may be officially disseminated by the proponents of the program. Please also see:

http://www.military-biodefensevaccines.org/

Our best wishes to those dealing with this difficult issue in their lives and military careers.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Two Military Officers Represented by Attorney Richard Stevens Have Adverse Disciplinary Actions Dropped From Their Records On Appeal

Recently, two military officers represented by attorney Richard Stevens had the adverse disciplinary actions they received dropped from their records due to successful appeals prepared and submitted on their behalves by Richard Stevens.

The first client, a field grade officer, had the adverse administrative disciplinary action he previously received removed from his records through an appeal submitted by Richard Stevens to the Department of the Army Suitability Evaluation Board (DASEB). This cleared the client’s personnel and disciplinary record, and he was subsequently promoted to O-5.

The second client, a company grade officer, had the adverse administrative disciplinary action he previously received removed from his records through an appeal submitted by Richard Stevens through the higher levels of the client’s chain-of-command. This cleared the client’s personnel and disciplinary record in time for the client to meet an upcoming promotion board with a clean record.

Both of these appeals were based on substantive issues as opposed to procedural errors.

While these disciplinary cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military case or disciplinary action. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

THE VALUE OF A GOOD DEFENSE LAWYER

You might recall a blog post I (attorney Richard Stevens) wrote this April titled “How Can You Defend Them?” That post described the role and importance of defense attorneys. Below is an article written by Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown Law (and much more eloquent than I) that echoes those sentiments – good defense lawyers are vital to a fair system of justice. A fair system of justice protects us all. Professor Barnett’s article follows:

BY RANDY E. BARNETT
Tuesday, April 17, 2007 12:01 a.m.

Years ago, I appeared on "The Ricki Lake Show" in an episode about persons who had been freed on appeal after being wrongfully convicted of crimes. As a former criminal prosecutor with the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in Chicago, I was there to represent the "prosecution viewpoint" (whatever that might be), along with the leader of New York's Guardian Angels representing the "victims' viewpoint."

The other guests consisted of innocent persons whose convictions had been reversed, their appellate lawyers, their parents and a reporter who had helped vindicate a father wrongfully convicted of murdering his young daughter. As I approached the set, I wondered what I could possibly say that would ward off the hoots of the audience, especially given that I was just as appalled by wrongful convictions and prosecutorial abuses.

The point I decided to make was simple: For better or worse, we have an adversary legal system that relies for its proper operation on having competent lawyers on both sides. In every case I knew about where an innocent person had been convicted, there had been an incompetent defense lawyer at the pretrial and trial stages.

The reaction of the others on the stage with me was stunning. The former defendants all began nodding their heads while their lawyers, who represented them on appeal but not at trial, sat sullenly beside them. Afterwards, some parents even came up to shake my hand.

The crucial importance of defense lawyers was illustrated in reverse by the Duke rape prosecution, mercifully ended last week by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper's highly unusual affirmation of the defendants' complete innocence. Others are rightly focusing on the "perfect storm," generated by a local prosecutor up for election peddling to his constituents a racially-charged narrative that so neatly fit the ideological template of those who dominate academia and the media. But perhaps we should stop for a moment to consider what saved these young men: defense attorneys, blogs and competing governments.

Our criminal justice system does not rely solely on the fairness of the police and prosecutors to get things right. In every criminal case, there is a professional whose only obligation is to scrutinize what the police and prosecutor have done. This "professional" is a lawyer. The next time you hear a lawyer joke, maybe you'll think of the lawyers who represented these three boys and it won't seem so funny. You probably can't picture their faces and don't know their names. (They include Joe Cheshire, Jim Cooney, Michael Cornacchia, Bill Cotter, Wade Smith and the late Kirk Osborn.) That's because they put their zealous representation of their clients ahead of their own egos and fame. Without their lawyering skills, we would not today be speaking so confidently of their clients' innocence.

These lawyers held the prosecutor's feet to the fire. Their skillful questioning at pre-trial hearings revealed the prosecutor's misconduct that eventually forced him to give up control of the case and now threatens his law license. They uncovered compelling exculpatory evidence and made it available to the press; they let their clients and their families air their story in the national media.

There is no rule book for what prosecutors call "heater" cases like this one. Navigating the law, politics and publicity in such case is an art not a science. These fine lawyers displayed all the skills and tenacity that made me want to be a criminal trial lawyer after watching the television series, "The Defenders," when I was 10 years old.

Do you suppose that lawyers like these gained their skills only representing the innocent? Criminal lawyers are constantly asked how they can live with themselves defending those guilty of serious crimes. The full and complete answer ought to be that, because we can never be sure who is guilty and who is innocent until the evidence is scrutinized, the only way to protect the innocent is by effectively defending everyone.

As a prosecutor working "felony review," when I was in a Chicago police station at 3 a.m. deciding whether to approve charges, I had to evaluate the evidence as if I were a defense attorney. Where is the murder weapon? Where are the proceeds of the robbery? How credible are the witnesses? How was the identification of the accused conducted?

In this way, the mere prospect of a competent defense attorney scrutinizing the evidence in the future provides a powerful deterrent to pursuing weak cases even before anyone is charged. Thanks to defense lawyers defending the innocent and guilty alike, prosecutors generally win their cases because they avoid weak cases they may lose. (After the charging stage, a prosecutor's ability to avoid losing at trial by plea bargaining weak cases is a serious, but separate and complex issue.)

Paradoxically, the system's overall accuracy makes defending the truly innocent all the harder. While knowing that mistakes do happen, the accuracy of the system leads everyone, including defense lawyers, to assume that anyone who is charged is probably guilty. After all, they usually are. Notwithstanding the legal "presumption of innocence," in a system that generally gets it right, there is a pragmatic presumption of guilt.

Consequently, effectively defending the innocent usually requires the ability to prove your client's innocence. And that's not easy. Further, because representing the guilty consists mainly of negotiating pleas or knocking holes in the prosecutor's case, defense lawyers do not always develop the skills needed to effectively defend the truly innocent or, as important, know when to deploy them. Defense lawyers become as skeptical about their clients' claims of innocence as everyone else, if not more so. All this contributes to inadequate defense lawyering, which thankfully did not occur here.

Good lawyering alone, however, was not enough to free the Duke players. While the "mainstream" press largely swallowed District Attorney Mike Nifong's narrative of racial oppression, the blogs--especially history professor Robert "K.C." Johnson's blog Durham-in-Wonderland (durhamwonderland.blogspot.com)--provided the means by which the public could learn about the fruits of the defense's efforts. (Mr. Johnson's own difficulty in 2002 obtaining tenure at Brooklyn College over ideologically-motivated opposition was chronicled on this page by Dorothy Rabinowitz, who also, true-to-form, came to the defense of the Duke Lacrosse players.)

Finally, without the competing governing powers of the North Carolina state bar, the Attorney General's office, and potentially the U.S. Justice Department, there would simply have been no one in authority to rein in this prosecutor. It is worth noting, to those who champion political accountability as the highest form of legitimacy, that District Attorney Nifong was elected by, and presumably "accountable" to, his constituents. Nevertheless, his power needed to be checked by competing government agencies and a free press.

Rather than praising the defense lawyers, some of the same folks who whooped in support of Mr. Nifong's efforts are now bemoaning that it was the supposed wealth of these students' parents that enabled them to mount so effective a defense. Never mind that draining all their savings and putting them in debt is an additional injustice resulting from this wrongful prosecution. Of course, as my grandfather used to say, "rich or poor, it's nice to have money," but this case shows that wealth is no defense to public ruin. Sometimes it even invites it.

Let us not be distracted all over again. The difficult problem of innocent defendants typically arises in run-of-the mill cases where prosecutors acting in good faith have no reason to doubt their guilt. It results in part from the pragmatic presumption of guilt, which leads to inadequate defense lawyering, an indifferent press and an oblivious public. There are no easy solutions to this. But refraining from ridiculing lawyers in general, and criminal defense lawyers in particular, would be a nice start, and one that lies within the power of everyone reading these words.

Mr. Barnett is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center and author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2004).

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007


Happy Fourth of July!
Happy Fourth of July to you and yours! Before the cookouts and fireworks, please take a moment to give thanks for the brave men and women of the American military, and their families, whose courage and sacrifice ensure our freedom. Have a great and safe Independence Day!

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Two Field Grade Officers Represented by Attorney Richard Stevens Have Adverse Administrative Actions Dropped

This past week, two field grade officers represented by attorney Richard Stevens had the adverse administrative actions they received dropped.

The first officer, with over two decades of military service, had an Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment) set-aside granted by the commander who originally imposed the Article 15. Between imposition of the Article 15 and the action being voided by the set-aside, additional evidence was collected and submitted by the defense to support the original defense argument and the set-aside request. No further/lesser disciplinary action was imposed after the set-aside was granted. The officer’s disciplinary record was cleared.

The second officer, also with over two decades of military service, had a marginal performance report removed from his records due to both procedural and substantive errors with the report, which partially stemmed from personality conflict with, and personal motives of, the rating officer. As a result of the successful appeal, the client’s career performance record was cleared and remains consistently high before meeting his O-6 promotion board.

While these administrative cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military case. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Monday, June 25, 2007

Enlisted Airman Represented by Frank Spinner Found Not Guilty of Assaults & Disorderly Conduct

This past week an enlisted airman, defended at court-martial by Frank Spinner (of counsel), was found not guilty of the assault and disorderly conduct allegations he faced. The assault allegations faced by the “defendant” were rebutted by the defense highlighting the conduct of the alleged victims in the incidents. The Air Force panel (“jury”), composed of five officer and four enlisted members, deliberated for approximately three hours before announcing the full acquittal.

In addition to this most recent trial acquittal, two other clients of Frank Spinner had their court-martial charges dismissed in the past couple months. One client faced an allegation of drug use, the other client faced a sexual assault claim. Both court-martial cases were dismissed prior to trial commencing.

While these court-martial cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Rape Charge and Court-Martial Dropped Against Noncommissioned Officer Represented by Attorney Richard Stevens

This past week, a retirement eligible noncommissioned officer defended by attorney Richard Stevens had the rape charge, and court-martial, he faced dropped by the government. The court-martial case had proceeded past an Article 32 hearing and was set to go to trial at the beginning of July. The withdrawal and dismissal of charges was announced this past week, on the eve of trial, after intensive investigation of the case, and motions filed, by the defense. The maximum authorized punishment for a rape conviction would have been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

For clients represented/defended by Richard Stevens, that brings to six, the number of military rape, sexual assault and sexual offense cases in the last couple years which did not result in a court-martial conviction for the government – either because the case was dismissed/dropped or the client was found not guilty (complete acquittal).

While these criminal cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

The Cost of Overzealous Prosecution – The Continuing Saga of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Scandal

The consequences continue to mount for outgoing Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. He has been disbarred. His departure from office has been hastened by the Sheriff taking Mr. Nifong’s badge and the keys to his office, per the order of a North Carolina Superior Court Judge. There are rumblings of possible criminal contempt charges against the D.A. and civil lawsuits by the wrongly accused Duke lacrosse players.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/19/prosecutor.disbarred.ap/index.html

Some, perhaps many, are celebrating the public downfall of the once outspoken D.A. I don’t begrudge anyone their right to celebrate, but I’m not sure celebration is the appropriate reaction to what has taken place. It’s all sad.

It’s sad that a prosecutor, apparently for political gain, so blatantly crossed the line and attempted to convict and jail young men who turned out to be innocent. It’s sad that innocent young men were paraded in front of the nation as lawless rapists. It’s sad that Duke University was so quick to cancel the lacrosse season and condemn their own innocent students. It’s sad that this case so starkly exposed that “innocent unless proven guilty” does not apply when it comes to public opinion and media coverage. You could even say it’s sad that a young woman was so troubled that she was willing to ruin the lives of innocent men by making false allegations – that impacted not just the young men and their families, but the university and the local community.

If you don’t think the word “sad” applies, you can substitute into that commentary string whatever term you feel is more appropriate; maybe “disappointing” or “outrageous” or “shocking.” The point is, this one case has raised some critical issues in the criminal justice system at large.

Do you believe this is the only case in which an overzealous prosecutor went too far to win a case? Or, are many of these injustices simply never exposed? Do you believe this is the first case in which an alleged victim made false allegations? Or, did the stars just align perfectly in this case to show what has happened across jurisdictions throughout the history of our legal system? In an identical case with less public exposure, economically disadvantaged defendants, and defense attorneys with less skill, experience and/or resources, what do you believe the outcome of this case would have been? Would three young men be sitting behind bars for the better part of the rest of their adult lives? Hopefully, this case has made you think. The cost of overzealous prosecution is rarely born by the prosecutor.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Monday, June 11, 2007


Attorney Richard Stevens Returns from South Korea


I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) recently returned to the States from a trip to represent a military member serving in South Korea. This trip took me through Seoul, Osan AB and Kunsan AB.

Consistent with what we have found during all of the worldwide travel Frank Spinner (of counsel) and I have engaged in to represent American military members stationed across the globe, our military men and women stationed in South Korea are motivated, cohesive and represent the best of their generation. We salute all of you for your continued efforts and commitment in distant locations and for a job very well done.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Monday, April 23, 2007

200th DNA Exoneration - Barry Scheck and the Innocence Project

Below is a link to a blog post by Barry Scheck, who is the Co-Director of the Innocence Project. Mr. Scheck has just attended the exoneration of Jerry Miller, who has spent the last 26 years in prison based on a conviction for rape, robbery and kidnapping - crimes that he was innocent of.

Here is an excerpt from Mr. Scheck's blog post:

Jerry is 48 years old now. He has lost virtually his entire adult life to a wrongful conviction. And he is the 200th person in the United States who has been exonerated through DNA evidence…

…Combined, these 200 people have served about 2,500 years in prison - that's roughly a million nights in prison.

People often tell me they can't imagine anything worse than spending years or decades in prison for a crime someone else committed. The only thing worse would be to endure the horror of wrongful conviction and not have it count for something - to have society fail to learn the lessons of injustice and reform the system to prevent it from happening to anyone else.

The 200 DNA exonerations nationwide give us irrefutable scientific proof of the flaws in the criminal justice system. We look at every exoneration to determine what caused the wrongful conviction in the first place, and we see clear patterns. More than 75% of the wrongful convictions involved eyewitness misidentification (often cross-racial misidentification, and often from more than one witness); nearly two-thirds involve forensic science errors (from simple mistakes to outright fraud); 25% were based on false confessions (as the result of coercive interrogations or defendants' limited mental capabilities).

By identifying the causes of wrongful convictions, we can develop reforms that work…

Mr. Scheck's blog post, and his work on the Innocence Project, prove that terrible injustices occur in the American criminal court system. These 200 exonerations are only those that were, thankfully, discovered and righted. How many other erroneous convictions have occurred? How many more will occur in the future? The work of the Innocence Project is critically important, not just to the lives of the individuals saved by the dedicated people who are the Innocence Project, but also to the systems of criminal justice around our country.

In my previous blog post I answered the question "How can you defend them?" The successes of the Innocence Project, and stories like that of Jerry Miller, are just more examples of why we do what we do as defense attorneys. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who helped expose the Jerry Miller case. By "we all" I don't mean the community of defense lawyers, I mean Americans.

Here is the link to Mr. Scheck's blog post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/on-the-200th-dna-exonerat_b_46551.html

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

“HOW CAN YOU DEFEND THEM?”

The Duke Lacrosse rape case should have been a wake-up call about many issues. One of those issues should be the role of the criminal defense lawyer.

“How can you defend them?” is a question all criminal defense lawyers have faced – from strangers, associates, friends and even family. The question is usually accompanied either by a look of disgust or a look of incomprehension; sometimes both.

We in the criminal defense community know why we do this. We know how much we care about the rights everyone in our society enjoys. We know that our job gives a voice to those rights and protects all of you from those rights being ignored. We in the criminal defense community know that we are trying to protect all of you from false allegations, false arrests, improper convictions and inappropriate sentences. We are the people who stand between you as an individual and the power and resources of the state/government.

Maybe it takes a highly publicized case like the Duke case to shake you to realize that false claims are made and people can be convicted, jailed, and have their life ruined for something they didn’t do. Criminal defense lawyers are the people who fight to prevent that from happening. We fight to ensure the system stays honest. There seems to be a general acceptance that if an arrest is made, or if a conviction occurs, it must be correct. Maybe now more and more people are realizing that isn’t so. I’m not suggesting you need to completely distrust the police, the prosecutors and the courts. I’m simply saying you shouldn’t so readily rush to accept their version. It is important to ask questions. It is important to presume innocence unless guilt is proven.

Here is a true story:

I (attorney Richard Stevens) had a young military client who was accused of a particularly heinous crime. He was placed into military jail (pretrial confinement) awaiting trial. He sat in his jail cell for nearly seven months waiting on his day in court.

The military investigators were convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The local prosecutors were convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The community was convinced they had their man. He was guilty. The base commander calmed the community’s fears about the crime by proclaiming that my client was behind bars.

I remember, like it was yesterday, visiting my client in jail to tell him the prosecution notified me they were considering making his case a capital case – they were considering asking for the death penalty if he was convicted. I will never forget his father looking me in the eyes and imploring me, as only a father can, “Don’t let them kill my son for something he didn’t do!”

The lead military investigator actually laughed at me when I raised some questions about the case. He saw my questions as ridiculous. They had their man. My defense co-counsel and I investigated this case as we would any case. We don’t prejudge our cases. We don’t choose when to work a case and when to let it slide. We talked to witnesses, we followed leads, we established a timeline. We began to poke holes in the investigation and the evidence. The pretrial hearing lasted for days. Witness after witness testified. The holes in the investigation and the evidence grew wider. As I cross-examined the lead investigator about these problems with the case, his disdain was obvious. The look on his face said, “How could you represent him? How could you try to undermine our investigation?”

After the pretrial hearing was over, the hearing officer addressed the problems with the case, but said there was sufficient evidence to go forward to trial. But, the questions we were raising about the case had the interest of the supervising government attorneys (above the local level). They didn’t jump to the conclusion that the case was solved. They demanded a new investigation – although the lead military investigator protested it.

(I think you all know where this is heading…)

A new investigation was launched. The next door neighbor was questioned. He started to act strange. He was questioned again. The neighbor confessed to committing the crime. The forensic evidence that had been collected matched the neighbor. The military investigators had been wrong! The local prosecutors had been wrong! The community had been wrong! Fast forward…

My client was released from military confinement. The neighbor was charged, convicted and is now serving life in prison. My client has since married and he and his wife have had a child. Just think how different the course of my client’s life would have been if we, as his defense attorneys, had accepted what the military investigator and local prosecutors were telling us? If we had prejudged our client’s guilt and just went through the motions instead of zealously defending him and pointing out the flaws in the case?

We were just doing our jobs. We were doing what we, and defense lawyers around the country, do every day and do in every case. We were zealously defending our client, and it turned out our client was innocent. We zealously defend all our clients – and we are too often maligned for doing this. Remember what I said above. The military investigator laughed at me for asking questions about the case.

Maybe next time you hear about a criminal case you will catch yourself before jumping to conclusions. Think about the story above. Think about the Duke Lacrosse case. Don't prejudge the case and don't pass judgment on the defense attorneys defending it.

Here is an interesting opinion by Jonna Spilbor:

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/commentary/20070416_spilbor.html?cnn=yes

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Saturday, April 21, 2007

Air Force Officer Represented by Frank Spinner Found Not Guilty of Rape

An Air Force officer, defended at court-martial by Frank Spinner, was recently found not guilty of the rape charge he faced. The accused officer was charged with raping a female officer stationed at the same base. The maximum authorized punishment for a rape conviction for either “defendant” would have been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Similarly, none of the three most recent military rape cases defended by Richard Stevens have resulted in a conviction.


One of the cases against a noncommissioned officer was dropped on the eve of the pretrial Article 32 hearing when the defense presented significant information learned during our investigation of the case, one of the cases against another noncommissioned officer was dropped after a litigated (contested) Article 32 hearing, and the third military rape case proceeded to trial by court-martial. In that case, the “defendant,” a military officer accused of rape by a fellow female officer acquaintance, was found not guilty by an officer panel (“jury”). As described above, the maximum authorized punishment for a rape conviction in any of those court-martial cases would have been life in prison without the possibility of parole.

While these rape court-martial cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

As everyone around the country likely knows by now, there was a tragic mass murder/shooting today at Virginia Tech. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all who were affected by today's events, particularly the victims and the families scarred by the injury or death of their loved ones.

By: Attorney Richard Stevens
www.militaryadvocate.com
Unequal Justice: “Military courts are stacked to convict…” – An Article By Edward T. Pound

In 2002, an article about the military justice system, written by Edward T. Pound, was published in U.S. News & World Report. It is a perspective that military lawyers, civilian attorneys who practice in military courts, and others who follow military law and discipline might be interested in. The link follows:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/021216/16justice.htm

Blog Content: Published in U.S. News & World Report

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Rape and Sexual Assault Allegations in the Military, Part 3 – False Rape Claims Do Occur

To ensure that my perspective is fully understood, I will begin this post with the same preface as before:

Nothing in this blog series should be misconstrued as suggesting that I believe all rape or sexual assault allegations in the military are false or that raising the issues I’m about to discuss disrespects women (admittedly women are not the only alleged victims of rape and sexual assault, but they make up the vast majority). Neither interpretation could be farther from the truth. I have female friends and family members who proudly serve in the military and who agree with my views on this topic. I have also advised/represented women in the military who have alleged rape against other military members. Each case is different and the individuals involved in each case are different. It is important not to be quick to judge or vilify someone for raising legitimate concerns about how the military justice system handles these cases.

This blog post also is not meant to suggest that no military commander, staff judge advocate, prosecutor or other member of the military justice system handles rape cases fairly and appropriately. That too would be an erroneous conclusion. Those cases, however, are beginning to fall into the “exception” category, rather than the “rule.”


The issue for this post is that false claims of rape and sexual assault do occur within the military (and civilian communities). To accept the proposition that a rape claim must be true because no one would subject themselves to the difficulties that rape victims might experience is the first step in convicting an innocent person.

There are a wide range of motives to make a false allegation of rape or sexual assault. Guilt and confusion after a night of drinking. Avoiding a boyfriend or husband’s reaction to unfaithfulness. Shielding oneself from the consequences of one’s own misconduct. Protecting one’s reputation from the “promiscuous” label. Anger over a sexual encounter not blossoming into a long term relationship as expected. These are just some of the examples Frank Spinner (of counsel) and I (attorney Richard Stevens) have seen in our travels through the military legal system.

The numbers or percentages of false rape or sexual assault claims are extremely difficult to quantify. Just enter the terms “false and rape” into Google or another search engine and you can read this for yourself. Here are some examples:

http://www.falserape.net/

http://www.falserape.net/false-rape.htm

http://www.falserape.net/falserapeafa.htm

http://www.falserape.net/four_disney_employees_exonerated.html

http://www.falserape.net/research_shows_false.html

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1719

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,153969,00.html

http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

I could provide you with so many case examples of false rape and sexual assault allegations that you would eventually scream “I get it already!” and quit reading this blog. So, I will just choose two examples from military cases to prove the point.

A young military man and a young military woman had sex one night. The young woman had been interested in the young man. The young woman made no claim of rape that night. Immediately after that night, the young woman did not say anything, or act, as if she had been assaulted by the young man. The witnesses reported that she was happy and was still interested in the young man. As time progressed, that changed. The young woman became unhappy and angry toward the young man. She accused him of raping her that night. She became an “alleged victim.”

Despite the lack of physical evidence and the statements of the witnesses describing the alleged victim after the night in question, charges were brought and the young man was court-martialed. The young man had no prior history and was ably defended at trial. The defense argued that the alleged victim wanted more than a one night stand, and became angry and disillusioned when the young man did not pursue a relationship with her. The jury returned in less than an hour. An acquittal was expected. Instead, the young man was convicted of rape. In less than an hour a weak case based solely on the word of this alleged victim, who had a motive to lie, resulted in a military rape conviction.

Here’s where fate and extreme good luck stepped in to prevent a tragedy. Normally, after a court-martial conviction the case proceeds immediately to the sentencing phase. In this case, there was a brief break after the conviction. During the break, one of the alleged victim’s closest friends came forward and said the alleged victim had told her the sex was consensual. The alleged victim’s diary had been turned over during the investigation, but entries regarding the night in question were absent. During the post-conviction break, military investigators received authority to search the alleged victim’s car. In her car trunk were the missing pages of her diary. In those pages she details how the sex was consensual and that she became increasingly angry that the young man did not call her or pursue a relationship thereafter. Further, the alleged victim described how she enjoyed the attention she was receiving as a “victim,” particularly when she testified in the pretrial hearing. The government dropped the charges/conviction against the young man. The alleged victim was never charged. How did a weak case against an innocent young military man get charged and tried and result in a conviction in less than an hour??

Here is another example:

A young military woman had sex one night with two young military men. It was a “threesome.” It was also videotaped. The young woman made no claim of rape that night. Eventually, she learned that the young men were spreading the news of the threesome among their group of friends. The young woman claimed rape. She was now an “alleged victim.” The video could not be found. Based on the alleged victim’s word, the two young men were charged with rape. As the case proceeded toward court-martial the investigators recovered the video tape. On the tape was a very obviously consensual sexual encounter between the three parties. Charges were dropped shortly before trial was set to begin. Again, a lucky break on the eve of disaster.

Do false rape and sexual assault claims happen? Yes, of course they do. I’m not sure the numbers or percentages are important. People are being falsely accused of crimes they did not commit and are facing trials, convictions, and sentences. These innocent people are facing a profound change in the course of the rest of their lives. The two examples above illustrate situations in which the false claims were discovered in the nick of time. How many other defendants were not so lucky? How many did not have the truth uncovered?

More to come…

By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation.