CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: MILITARY DEFENSE LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD V. STEVENS: May 2019

Monday, May 27, 2019

Happy and Reflective Memorial Day!

Memorial Day was originally called Decoration Day - a day for remembrance of those Americans who have died in service to our country. We hope you all have a happy and meaningful Memorial Day (weekend). In the midst of your other activities, please take some time to reflect on the meaning of the holiday and say thanks for those brave Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for our great country, and the ideals we stand for!

Sunday, May 26, 2019

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: ANOTHER MILITARY OFFICER AND PILOT REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS PREVAILS AT FLYING EVALUATION BOARD (F.E.B.) AFTER AVIATION MISHAP

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, another military officer and pilot defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) prevailed in a litigated Flying Evaluation Board (F.E.B.) hearing that addressed an aviation mishap the pilot was involved in and other alleged flying incidents.

The officer client was involved in an aviation mishap that resulted in a Safety Investigation Board (S.I.B.), a Command Directed Investigation (C.D.I.), and a Flying Evaluation Board (F.E.B.). During the F.E.B. process and hearing, the client was accused of lack of judgment regarding the mishap, and other alleged flying incidents. The client was represented by attorney Richard V. Stevens.

An F.E.B. hearing is a formal administrative hearing before fellow pilots in which recommendations are made about whether the accused pilot should remain in aviation service, and whether that pilot can continue to wear his wings. Based on that recommendation, the pilot could continue his military career, or he could face the loss of his flying career, his military career, and be involuntarily administratively discharged.

In this F.E.B. case, the defense called multiple witnesses and presented considerable evidence not only in support of the pilot, but addressing the unique circumstances of the aviation mishap and other alleged incidents. After closing arguments, the F.E.B. members delivered a unanimous recommendation in favor of the pilot continuing in military aviation service. Because an F.E.B. is a closed administrative hearing, specific details cannot be provided.

This is the third Flying Evaluation Board defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens in the past several months.

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 aviation issues and Flying Evaluation Boards, see:

https://militaryadvocate.com/practice-areas/flying-evaluation-board/

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.

https://militaryadvocate.com/

Blog postscript: I (attorney Richard V. Stevens) am a former active duty military lawyer (JAG). My perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon my experience as military defense lawyer and as a civilian criminal defense lawyer 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 for a free consultation. These military defense law offices are located in the Washington DC, Northern Virginia, Maryland, National Capital Region (NCR), but the military defense representation is worldwide – when necessary, the attorneys travel to wherever the client is stationed around the world.

Thursday, May 09, 2019

CIVILIAN COURT-MARTIAL DEFENSE LAWYER: JUNIOR ENLISTED MILITARY MEMBER REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY RICHARD V. STEVENS HAS SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE DROPPED (UCMJ ARTICLE 120)

Military Defense Lawyer (Former JAG Attorney) News:

Recently, a junior enlisted military member defended by attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) had the sexual assault case he faced dropped by the military before court-martial charges were preferred (UCMJ Article 120).

The military client was accused of, and investigated for, having sex with a military acquaintance when she was supposedly too intoxicated to consent. The defense expected the witnesses to dispute that the complainant was too intoxicated, and to confirm she was engaged in behavior that indicated she was interested in the client, but one witness had a different perspective. The initial allegation in the case came from a bystander who was romantically interested in the complainant, and it appeared from the outset that he was the driving (jealous) force who was truly pushing the complaint. Because of this, we sat back and waited to see if the complainant would truly commit to the prosecution of the case – knowing that she was not too intoxicated to consent and that her behavior that night was all indicative of interest in the client.

We received mixed messages from the government about whether the case was going forward, and requests for subject interview that we declined. Ultimately, the complainant would not commit to going forward and the government dropped the case before court-martial charges were preferred. This case was different than most, because our strategy in this case was to sit back and wait for the case to crumble based on what the other witnesses were saying and the complainant knowing we would be asking tough questions based on what those witnesses saw, whereas we are normally confronting the case head-on and presenting a glimpse of the government’s future case problems through defense submissions.

Had there been a court-martial trial and sex crime conviction in this case, the client could have been sentenced to a punitive discharge, a lengthy term of confinement in prison and, in addition, he may have been required to register as a sex offender. Thankfully, the case was dropped and he was spared this risk of devastation to his future.

While this military court-martial and sexual assault 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.