CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY DEFENSE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD V. STEVENS: April 2015

Thursday, April 23, 2015

Retired General David Petraeus Sentenced for Classified Information Breach

Former CIA Director and Retired General David Petraeus Sentenced for Classified Information Breach.

Two years probation and $100,000.00 fine. Story appears here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/23/petraeus-sentenced-to-2-years-probation-for-military-leak/?intcmp=latestnews

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYERS: Retirement Eligible Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Represented by Attorney Richard V. Stevens Wins Involuntary Discharge Board Hearing

Military Criminal Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a retirement eligible senior non-commissioned officer (NCO) won, and was retained at, an involuntary discharge board hearing. The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.).

The accused client was alleged to have committed serious misconduct related to subordinates of his. The discharge board hearing was litigated over two days, and included defense cross-examination of a Wing Commander whose opinion was contested by the defense. The government argued that, despite the NCO’s decades of service, he should be separated under other than honorable conditions. The board members concluded that a serious offense was not committed and the client should not be discharged. He was retained in the service.

Because of the administrative nature of the proceeding, no further details can be provided. While this military 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 or case.

For more information about the military justice system, please also see:

http://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/administrative-dischargeseparation/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in. Just call us.

Thank you.

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

Blog postscript: Attorney Frank J. Spinner and I (attorney Richard V. 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 and military justice. 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 and The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in Northern Florida (Pensacola, Ft Walton, Destin, Eglin AFB, Hurlburt Field, Duke Field, Panama City, Tyndall AFB areas) and Colorado Springs, Colorado (FT Carson, Peterson AFB, Air Force Academy, Schriever AFB, Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station, Buckley AFB areas), but our military defense law practices are worldwide – we travel to wherever our clients are stationed or serving and need us.

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYERS: Sexual Assault Court-Martial Case Against Military Member Dropped by Government Prior to Trial (UCMJ Article 120)

Military Criminal Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, an enlisted military member who was facing a general court-martial in which he was accused of four allegations of sexual assault (UCMJ Article 120) had his court-martial charges withdrawn and dismissed (dropped) as trial approached. The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.).

The military client was accused of sexually assaulting a civilian acquaintance in various ways during a night of drinking alcohol. The case had been through an Article 32 hearing and trial was scheduled. During the Article 32 hearing, the defense called witnesses who refuted the complainant’s story, particularly one witness who was a friend of the complainant and was present for the entire night. That witness directly refuted the complainant on most of the significant points in her story. The complainant was present for this Article 32 testimony and saw her story crumbling. As trial approached, the defense continued to pressure for the complainant to turn over her phone and other records that were relevant to the case.

The credibility problems of the complainant and her motives to fabricate her story became increasingly clear and the information sought by the defense would likely have further eroded her credibility. As trial approached, the complainant chose not to go forward with the case. The government then withdrew and dismissed the court-martial charges.

Had this case gone to a general court-martial trial as originally intended by the government, the maximum authorized punishment for a court-martial conviction on the allegations in this case would have included decades in prison, dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, and sex offender registration would have been required.

While this military court-martial 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 or case.

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases alleging rape and/or sexual assault in violation of UCMJ Article 120, type “rape” or “sexual assault” into the search bar above the blog posts. Also, see:

http://militaryadvocate.com/military-offenses/rape-sexual-assault-sodomy/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in. Just call us.

Thank you.

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

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYERS: Military Member Accused of Illegal Drug Use and Possession (UCMJ Article 112a) Successfully Defended at Trial - Avoids Punitive Discharge and Significant Jail Sentence

Military Criminal Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a military enlisted member who was facing a court-martial in which the allegations included wrongful use of illegal drugs (methamphetamine) on more than one occasion, possession of illegal drugs (methamphetamine), and possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of UCMJ Article 112a and 134 was successfully defended at trial. The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.).

At trial, the accused client pled guilty to wrongful use of methamphetamine and a related offense without a pretrial agreement (plea deal). The client pled not guilty to the claims of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The litigated trial regarding these two allegations resulted in the client being found not guilty of both allegations. The trial, therefore, proceeded to sentencing only based on what the client had originally pled guilty to. Prior to sentencing, the defense won a motion for illegal pretrial punishment. The maximum authorized sentence the client faced, based on the guilty plea, included a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) and one year in jail. During sentencing, the government argued for a BCD and up to 8 months in jail, depending on other factors. In response, the defense pointed out significant mitigating circumstances in the case and argued for no BCD and no confinement. The client was sentenced to no BCD and received only 10 days in jail based on the mitigating circumstances and the defense motion that was won prior to sentencing.

The sentence of no Bad Conduct Discharge was particularly important in the case because the client had an approved medical retirement which would have been lost if the government’s argument for a BCD had been successful.

For more information about the military justice system, particularly cases alleging illegal drug use, drug possession, drug distribution or introduction of illegal drugs onto a military installation, in violation of UCMJ Article 112a, please also see:

http://militaryadvocate.com/military-drug-crime-defense-ucmj-article-112a/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in. Just call us.

Thank you.

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

Monday, April 06, 2015

Rolling Stone’s “Journalistic Failure” in Jumping on the “You Must Believe the Victim” Bandwagon

College campuses are struggling with the same issues faced by military culture. The political crusade to stop rape and sexual assault – while certainly a laudable goal – has exceeded the bounds of reason and common sense. There are false public narratives about sex and alcohol. There are manipulated statistics. There is blurring of lines between regret born from poor judgment and actual lack of consent. There are efforts to diminish the rights of the accused. There are mantras to “believe the victim” when our American criminal justice systems are based on the presumption of innocence. And there are the politicians, like Senator Gillibrand, leading the charge from a very skewed and politically advantageous perspective.

The drumbeat for reform is drowning out the need for a measured, effective, and Constitutional approach to the issue.

That drumbeat of “you must believe the victim” recently swallowed up Rolling Stone, in their reporting of an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. The story “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA” has been the subject of considerable news coverage. Now, an independent review of the story conducted by the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, at the request of Rolling Stone, has criticized the reporting and editing of the now discredited story, according to:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/06/rolling-stone-apologizes-retracts-discredited-rape-story/

With the military justice system reeling under attacks by politicians, lawmakers, advocacy groups, the press, and others who seek to limit the ability of military defendants to investigate the allegations against them and to present their defense at trial, cautionary tales like what happened with this article show why it is so important…

- To slow down, not to rush to conclusions that support, or are born out of, a preferred narrative.

- That there be checks and balances to ensure the State (the government, the prosecution - military or civilian) does not have unfair advantage and free reign to convict and jail American citizens.

- That, particularly in military rape and sexual assault cases and courts-martial, we stop hearing from those on the government side that they claim to know, and have determined, what happened behind closed doors - as if they are human lie detectors and are omniscient.

- That we recognize that false confidence that the prosecutor (or politicians or the press) “knows what happened and knows the truth” can cause individuals in positions of authority - such as prosecutors, legal advisers, etc. - to act in questionable ways because they believe they wear the “white hats” and/or the “ends justify the means.” That is not, nor can it ever be, the case.

The loudest of the politicians are either too eager to lead the charge, or they just don’t care, about the cautions addressed above. They just press forward with the misguided narrative that military defendants (the accused) are presumed to be guilty and the military justice system needs to be changed so that conviction and harsh sentence statistics are increased.

That narrative included signs hung all over military installations that read: “Believe the Victim.” If we just blindly believe an allegation without appropriately investigating it, we end up with stories like the Rolling Stone story, and innocent men being convicted at trial.

As I have argued in previous blog posts:

No one knows when this crusade to “fix” the military justice system will end, but the goal of the crusaders certainly is not justice, nor is it fairness, nor is it supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. The goal of the crusaders is prosecution victory. Period. That is a very dangerous perspective, as seen in this Rolling Stone article.

http://militaryadvocate.com/military-offenses/rape-sexual-assault-sodomy/

We offer free consultations for a case you may be involved in. Just call us.

Thank you.

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