CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY DEFENSE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD V. STEVENS: 2016

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Civilian Court-Martial Defense Lawyers: End of Year Wrap-Up and Welcome to 2017

Military Criminal Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Another year has come to an end, and it was another gratifying year of defending those who defend us! We want to sincerely thank our clients for allowing us the privilege of representing them and their families. Thank you all so much for your service and your sacrifice!

As former military defense JAG lawyers, and now as civilian court-martial defense attorneys, we strive to help military members and their families during very difficult times. Therefore, we measure the term “success” by how well we were able to help our clients and their families with outcomes that positively resolved the military cases, allegations, adverse actions and investigations they faced – not by our financial bottom lines.

Looking back on 2016, it was marked by positive outcomes and grateful clients – from court-martial trials dropped and won to successful appeals and responses to other military adverse actions and discipline. These outcomes are extremely gratifying for us. Some of the successes from this past year have been documented in our blog (when we have time to post updates). For the fourth straight year, I received the Avvo client’s choice award for military law in 2016.

This past year, I defended, represented, advised, counseled or otherwise assisted clients and/or handled cases out of:

- FT Hood (Killeen, Texas)

- FT Carson (Colorado Springs, Colorado)

- FT Smith (Arkansas)

- Naval Air Station Pensacola (Florida)

- Naval Station Everett (Washington State)

- Fort Meade (Maryland)

- JB Andrews AFB (NCR, Washington DC area)

- JBSA Lackland AFB (San Antonio, Texas)

- JBSA Randolph AFB (San Antonio, Texas)

- Tyndall AFB (Panama City, Florida)

- MacDill AFB (Tampa, Florida)

- Robins AFB (Warner Robins, Georgia)

- U.S. Air Force Academy (Colorado Springs, Colorado)

- Peterson AFB (Colorado Springs, Colorado)

- Kirtland AFB (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

- Shaw AFB (Sumter, South Carolina)

- Eglin AFB (Ft Walton, Destin area, Florida)

- Dyess AFB (Abilene, Texas)

Some of the cases, allegations and military law issues I handled this past year included:

- Rape, Sexual Assault, Sexual Misconduct (UCMJ Article 120)

- Forcible Sodomy (UCMJ Article 125)

- Larceny, Wrongful Appropriation, BAH Fraud, PCS Fraud, Travel Voucher Fraud (UCMJ Article 121)

- Insubordination, Failure to Obey Lawful Orders, & Dereliction of Duty (UCMJ Articles 91 & 92)

- Drug Offenses: Wrongful Use, Possession, Introduction, Distribution of Controlled Substances (UCMJ Article 112a)

- Physical Assault and Assault Consummated by Battery (UCMJ Article 128)

- Child Abuse

- False Official Statement (UCMJ Article 107)

- Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman (UCMJ Article 133)

- Joint Federal Travel Regulation (JFTR) fraud

- UCMJ Article 134 offenses including:

- Adultery

- Fraternization

- Sexual Harassment

- Solicitation of Prostitution

- Receipt, possession and/or distribution of child pornography

- Obstruction of Justice

Some of the adverse actions I have defended against this past year have included:

- Court-martial trials and court-martial clemency (general court-martial and special court-martial)

- Administrative discharge boards, administrative separation boards

- Officer Elimination Actions, Board of Inquiry (BOI)

- Senior Officer Investigations and Discipline

- Officer Grade Determination (OGD)

- Article 15, Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP)

- Performance report appeals (OER, NCOER, OPR, EPR)

- Board for Corrections of Military Records (BCMR) appeals in different military branches

- Discharge Review Board (DRB) appeals in different military branches

- Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) cases in different military branches

- Medical De-Credentialing, Privileging Actions

- Flying Evaluation Boards (FEB)

- Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests

- Military Academy discipline, disenrollment, boards, and appeals

Here are some links to blog posts and articles describing the outcomes of some of my 2016 cases:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/12/civilian-court-martial-lawyers-three.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/12/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/09/requiem-for-military-justice-system.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/08/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers.html

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/08/26/gay-air-force-lieutenant-found-not-guilty-sexual-assault/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/justice-finally-comes-for_b_11694972.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/air-force-injustice-trial-with-no-credible-evidence_us_57c30ff2e4b06384eb403179

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/05/civilian-court-martial-lawyers-forcible.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/05/civilian-court-martial-lawyers-senior_19.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/05/civilian-court-martial-lawyers-military.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/05/civilian-court-martial-lawyers-senior.html

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/05/navy-admiral-ret-william-mcraven-and.html

We are very thankful for the successful outcomes we have been able to secure for our clients this past year. For ease of researching, here are links to my year-end blog posts, and case outcomes, from recent previous years:

2015 Year-End Blog Post:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2016/01/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers.html

2014 Year-End Blog Post:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2014/12/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers.html

2013 Year-End Blog Post:

http://www.militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2014/01/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers.html

2012 Year-End Blog Post:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2013/01/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers.html

2011 Year-End Blog Post:

http://militaryadvocate.blogspot.com/2012/01/civilian-court-martial-defense-lawyers_01.html

As we always warn, while the military court-martial trials and other military cases described in our blog posts were successfully defended against, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, evidence, and participants, and success in previous military courts-martial and military cases does not guarantee success in any particular future court-martial or military case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military case or military trial.

Given the potential consequences to military careers, families and personal freedom when facing military discipline, adverse action and/or court-martial trial, it is critical to be defended by a lawyer with experience in military law. For those seeking assistance, we offer free initial case consultations.

Please contact us by:

Toll Free Phone: (800) 988-0602

E-mail: militarylawfirm@gmail.com

Website: www.militaryadvocate.com

Attorneys:

http://militaryadvocate.com/about-us/

In the News:

http://militaryadvocate.com/Appearances/

Recent Reviews:

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/32566-fl-richard-stevens-693212/reviews.html

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 Colorado Springs, Colorado and Northern Florida/Georgia areas, but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Civilian Court-Martial Defense Lawyers: Senior Military Officer Retires Honorably at Highest Rank Held

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a senior military officer who faced an investigation and officer grade determination (OGD) retired honorably, and at the highest rank he held. The senior military officer was represented and defended during this process by military criminal defense attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.)

Because of the administrative nature of these actions, much detail cannot be discussed. Suffice it to say, the investigation was contradictory and not supported by the evidence, but rather was motivated by the politics of the day. When the client retired, he faced an officer grade determination (OGD) which could have reduced his retired rank to whatever rank he was determined to have last held honorably.

The defense/respondent submitted a rebuttal to the OGD, pointing out the deficiencies and issues with the investigation and case against the client, and the client was retired honorably, at the highest military grade/rank he served in. It was a long and difficult process, but the ultimate successful outcome was testament to the officer’s career of military service to this country.

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, particularly cases involving court-martial or discharge, type your search terms into the search bar above the blog posts. See also:

http://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/court-martial-trials/

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

We offer free initial 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 Lawyers: Three Alleged Rape and/or Sexual Assault Court-Martial Cases Dropped Against Military Enlisted Members Represented by Attorney Richard V. Stevens (UCMJ Article 120)

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, three enlisted military members in different service branches who were defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) had the rape and/or sexual assault court-martial allegations cases they faced dropped by the government prior to trial in favor of administrative dispositions (UCMJ Article 120).

In all three cases, the military clients faced a general court-martial trial and their cases had proceeded past the virtually worthless new Article 32 hearing process. In each case, the complaining witnesses were acquaintances of the respective clients and each complaining witness had significant credibility and motive issues. During heavily litigated motion hearings in each case, these issues were exposed with the complainants on the witness stand. After the motion hearings in each case, the government (with the agreement of the complaining witnesses) agreed to drop the general court-martial trials and handle each case with administrative action instead.

If any of these cases, which are akin to felony criminal trials in the civilian system, had proceeded to a general court-martial trial, and the accused client had been convicted as charged, the maximum authorized punishment in the case would have included decades in prison, dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures of pay and allowances, reduction in rank to E-1, and sex offender registration would have been required.

While these military 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 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 and 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

Sunday, December 25, 2016

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

Thursday, November 24, 2016

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Wishing you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving! To all the American military families out there, particularly those separated from each other due to military service, a very special thank you. In the words of USMC Father Dennis Edward O'Brien:

---------------------------------------------------------|

THE SOLDIER

It is the soldier,
not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the soldier,
not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier,
not the campus organizer,
who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the soldier,
not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the soldier,
who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag,
and whose coffin is draped by the flag,
who allows the protesters to burn the flag.

---------------------------------------------------------|

Pilgrim Edward Winslow describes the first Thanksgiving in 1621:

Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruits of our labor. They four in one day killed as much fowl as, with a little help beside, served the company almost a week. At which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which we brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty.

Friday, November 11, 2016

HAPPY VETERANS DAY

Please take some time today to reflect on, and thank, those brave veterans who have served and protected our country in the past, those who are currently serving our country, and the families who support and share in their sacrifices for us. Have a wonderful and meaningful Veterans Day!

Tuesday, November 01, 2016

A Legal Acknowledgement that they were "The Wrong Guys"

This book, by Tom Wells and Richard Leo, chronicles how U.S. Navy Sailors ("The Norfolk Four") were manipulated and psychologically coerced into confessing to a heinous crime they did not commit. Now, two of the four have just had their convictions overturned. A third previously had his conviction overturned. The fourth already served out his sentence.

Here are the latest stories (many others about the case can be found online):

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/31/judge-throws-out-rape-murder-convictions-2-norfolk-four-ex-sailors.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/norfolk-va-governor-declare-innocent-article-1.2853586

Yes, while it may be counter-intuitive, people do confess to crimes they didn't commit when faced with psychologically manipulative and coercive interrogation tactics meant to send the message that the evidence is stacked against them and they will be convicted, so they need to confess to take responsibility and help mitigate the situation...

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 Southern Georgia (Robins AFB, Moody AFB, Macon, Warner Robins areas), Northern/Middle 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.

Monday, October 24, 2016

False UVa Campus Gang Rape Story - Rolling Stone's "Worst Nightmare"

Here is an article about the ongoing lawsuit regarding the false UVa campus gang rape story that was published in Rolling Stone:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/23/rolling-stone-writer-describes-moment-uva-student-backed-off-gang-rape-story.html

I'm sure it was the writer's "worst nightmare." But, will she admit that one of the driving forces that led to this "nightmare" was the overwhelming lack of objectivity in the press (and government) regarding this issue? Instead of unbiased reporting, they act as advocates pushing a narrative:

"Assume the truth of the story and the complainant."
"Presume the guilt of those accused."
"Don't question or confront, just accept and believe."

Then, uh oh, "our worst nightmare"...

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

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 Southern Georgia (Robins AFB, Moody AFB, Macon, Warner Robins areas), Northern/Middle 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.

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

REQUIEM FOR THE MILITARY “JUSTICE” SYSTEM – Lessons from U.S. v. Lt Josh Seefried

As published in the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/57e1ed32e4b09f67131e3825?timestamp=1474424685209

The court-martial acquittal of Air Force Lieutenant Josh Seefried for alleged sexual assault has been widely reported on in the Washington Blade and Huffington Post. I was Josh’s lead trial defense attorney and I remain incredibly gratified that justice was finally achieved in his case. Justice in Josh’s case was his trial acquittal. Yes, justice can include acquittals and cases dropped before trial - despite what misguided politicians and advocacy groups seem to argue.

I am a former active duty JAG attorney, and my civilian law practice is exclusively focused on defending military members in the military justice system. I have devoted more than 20 years to this system, and I am a huge supporter of our military and the rights of those who volunteer to serve our country and accept the considerable risks and sacrifices inherent in that service.

But when military members face criminal accusations in the military justice system, particularly rape or sexual assault, they now enter a legal system in which politicians are attempting to rig the outcome to ensure their conviction and harsh sentence. Despite the historic position that Democrats concern themselves with due process and equal protection of defendants in criminal justice systems, the leaders in this movement to destroy the military legal system as a system of “justice” are Democrats. One of the ways they have attempted to rig the system is by changing the nature of Article 32 hearings, and not providing any due process protections to fill the void.

Before a military case can proceed to a general court-martial trial (akin to a “felony” trial), the case must first be considered in a pretrial Article 32 hearing. The officer presiding over this hearing provides a non-binding recommendation to the Convening Authority (a senior level commander) about what should happen with the allegations, which could include proceeding to general court-martial trial, being heard in a lesser judicial or administrative forum instead, or being dropped altogether. The Convening Authority then takes action on the case, and decides how it will proceed, if at all. The Convening Authority does not have to follow the recommendation of the officer presiding over the Article 32 hearing.

In Josh’s case, the Article 32 hearings were conducted under the old rules. Those old rules defined one of the purposes of Article 32 hearings as an opportunity for the defense to gather discovery for case preparation, and the rules allowed witnesses to be called and questioned under oath for that purpose. Witness questioning during the Article 32 hearings also provided critical information for Convening Authorities about the strength or weakness of the case, which informed their exercise of “prosecutorial discretion.” These hearings were actually called, and conducted as, “investigative hearings.”

After both Article 32 investigative hearings in Josh’s case under the old rules, the presiding O-6 Investigating Officer recommended Josh’s case be dropped. However, these hearings occurred when the military justice system was under intense political scrutiny. Because of the political climate and the adverse career consequences for commanders and Convening Authorities, such as Lt Gen Craig Franklin and Lt Gen Susan Helms, who dared to exercise their prosecutorial discretion in a manner that was not politically palatable, commanders now serving as Convening Authorities have learned their careers depend on them appearing to be unwavering in their support of complainants to the exclusion of any other interest – such as the fairness of the system, due process, the state of credible evidence, prosecutorial discretion, the rights of the accused, etc. So, despite the recommendations that Josh’s case be dropped, made by an experienced and respected Article 32 officer, Josh’s case continued to trial.

The Seefried case was likely the last case in the Air Force in which both Article 32 hearings were conducted under the old rules – whereby the hearing was conducted as an investigation and the complainant and key witnesses were called to the stand and questioned under oath in the hearing. This witness questioning revealed additional evidence that was necessary for our defense. The Article 32 questioning also resulting in transcripts that we used in case preparation and trial. Those Article 32 transcripts proved to be crucial in confronting and refreshing the recollections of witnesses at Josh’s trial, to include the complainant and the former co-accused. The outcome of Josh’s case was due, in large part, to the information we were able to discover and develop through questioning witnesses in his Article 32 hearings.

When the President and Congress changed the law and rules governing Article 32 hearings, ending the practice of conducting them as investigations and reducing them to largely meaningless paper-shuffles to only establish probable cause, they “justified” the change with the argument that civilian criminal justice systems don’t have pretrial investigations as broad in purpose as the military’s Article 32 hearings. While that may have been true, what the politicians conveniently left out of their argument were all of the due process protections that do exist within civilian criminal justice systems that do not exist within the military. So, when Article 32 hearings as investigative hearings were done away with, politicians did not fill that void with any of the due process protections that exist in civilian criminal justice systems. Their agenda to try to rig the system was obvious to those of us who practice within it.

For example, consider the differences between the federal criminal justice system and the military criminal justice system (which is also a federal system). Here are some of the resources and protections federal defenders have in their cases that military defenders do not have:

- A binding initial appearance before a federal judge;

- A binding preliminary hearing before a federal judge;

- A grand jury;

- Law enforcement agents who are not prohibited or discouraged from fully investigating both sides of a case;

- Real prosecutorial discretion which allows cases to be dropped if not supported by credible evidence;

- Federal defenders do not have to ask permission to interview complaining witnesses;

- The “State” in federal cases does not appoint an attorney to represent complaining witnesses separate from the federal prosecutors;

- Federal defenders have their own investigators, experts, and financial resources for more professional assistance;

- Federal defenders have the ability to subpoena witnesses;

- Convictions in federal court require unanimous verdicts; and,

- The President and Congress are not constantly tinkering with the federal system to try to improve case outcome statistics.

With regard to each point above, the defense in military cases does not have this protection or resource. The virtual loss of Convening Authority (prosecutorial) discretion and traditional Article 32 investigative hearings are only a couple of the dramatic changes to the military justice system in the recent years which have been marked by a political maelstrom that continues to result in systemic changes to the detriment of military defendants. As a result, it is exceedingly more difficult for the defense in military criminal cases to investigate and present relevant evidence. That appears to be precisely what the politicians intend. If trials are truly searches for the truth and justice, and aren’t simply a meaningless exercise meant to achieve a predetermined conviction, the idea that rules are being changed to limit the ability of the defense to investigate and present information on behalf of our clients is not only unjustifiable, it is un-American.

Josh’s case was a stark reminder of, and requiem for, the due process protections that used to exist within the military justice system, which were casualties of the recklessly false political narrative that branded the military as full of sexual predators who benefited in the past from a “broken” justice system. That system has now been deeply damaged by changes pushed by political agendas. This is America - where we, as a society, rightly concern ourselves with the fairness of our justice systems which should have procedural rules predicated on the fear that an innocent person could be convicted of something he or she did not do. With regard to the military justice system, what we see instead are politicians constantly instituting new changes in an effort to make it increasingly difficult to defend military members who face criminal allegations.

Josh Seefried was innocent. If he had gone through this case under the new rules in the military justice system, he might very well be sitting in a prison cell right now. Is that really the “justice” politicians are seeking for our military members?

Sunday, September 11, 2016

NEVER FORGET.

Monday, August 29, 2016

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYERS: Military Officer Found Not Guilty of All Charges and Specifications in Sexual Assault Court-Martial Trial (UCMJ Article 120 and Article 125)

Military Criminal Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a military officer who faced a general court-martial (GCM) in which he was accused of the sexual assault of an intoxicated acquaintance was found not guilty of all charges and specifications by the military judge at his court-martial trial. The accused military member was defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.), and the trial was litigated over 4 days in front of a military judge alone.

The case is described in these news articles and online publications:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2016/08/26/gay-air-force-lieutenant-found-not-guilty-sexual-assault/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/justice-finally-comes-for_b_11694972.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/air-force-injustice-trial-with-no-credible-evidence_us_57c30ff2e4b06384eb403179

The military officer was accused by an acquaintance he had been drinking with in a group of acquaintances. No one forced any drinks on the complainant, and no one perceived that the complainant was highly intoxicated or not in control of his mental faculties or physical abilities. The complainant claimed he was too drunk to consent because he supposedly could not remember various events that evening, even though the complainant’s friends, to include a JAG attorney, all witnessed him engage in sexual behavior with the accused that they believed to be completely willing and consensual, which occurred during the claimed blackout.

As most of these cases do, this case involved numerous motions, experts in forensic psychology, DNA/forensic chemistry, forensic data extraction and analysis, and sexual assault examinations (sexual assault nurse examiner [SANE]), and a complainant who initially refused to interview with the defense. The case also involved vital information entered into evidence from the complainant's phone, which had to be compelled for defense forensic analysis because investigators did not take it during the investigation and the government initially opposed defense access to the phone.

During the course of the trial, the defense exposed what we believed to be motives to fabricate or inaccurately remember and significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s story. This included using the words of the complainant during investigative interviews and a real Article 32 hearing, in which he questioned whether he actually did consent, and he accused another individual of some of the offenses he later attributed to the accused. The government’s DNA/serology/chemistry expert and SANE expert did not find evidence that was truly consistent with the claim, at most they couldn’t rule it out.

As with many cases these days, this case involved memory issues due to alcohol consumption, and incorrect factual and legal assumptions based on those memory issues. Moreover, it included addressing the impact of the military/political environment and sexual assault briefings which lead people to believe they are victims instead of taking responsibility for their own behavior and decisions.

Ultimately, the defense argued that the case came down to the complainant’s motives and lack of credibility and reliability, to include multiple real possibilities raised by the evidence other than the guilt of the accused. The judge then returned a verdict of not guilty of all charges and specifications (full acquittal).

Had there been a conviction in the case, the military accused could have been sentenced to a dismissal (equivalent of dishonorable discharge), decades in prison, forfeitures of all pay and allowances and, in addition, he would have been required to register as a sex offender. Thankfully, that did not happen and he can hopefully move on from this with a clean slate.

More will follow on this case. In the meantime, however, 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.

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

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 Southern Georgia (Robins AFB, Moody AFB, Macon, Warner Robins areas), Northern/Middle 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.