CAAF holds that a represented Marine had a statutory right to counsel at a second NCIS interview, then holds that nothing happens when investigators ignore it. On July 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decided United States v. Deremer, No. 25-0158/MC, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 616 (C.A.A.F. July 23,…
Continue reading ›The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Sanchez, No. 202500114, on May 28, 2026. A military judge at a general court-martial at MCAS Miramar convicted a 19-year-old Marine, in accordance with his pleas negotiated with the Office of Special Trial Counsel, of two specifications of sexual abuse…
Continue reading ›The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Fulsom, No. 202500166, on May 29, 2026. Officer members at a general court-martial at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam convicted a 19-year-old Lance Corporal, contrary to his pleas, of attempted sexual assault of a child and attempted sexual abuse of a…
Continue reading ›The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Durbin, No. 202400333, on June 2, 2026, over a dissent. A military judge sitting alone at a special court-martial at Camp Lejeune convicted Captain Durbin, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133,…
Continue reading ›The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Benton, No. 202400332, on June 5, 2026. A military judge sitting alone at a special court-martial at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point convicted Private First Class Benton, contrary to his pleas, of breaching restriction under Article 87b, UCMJ, and…
Continue reading ›The Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals returned to United States v. Reimonenq for a second time and affirmed the findings and sentence. The opinion carries three practical lessons for any service member facing a court-martial: a suppression win can reshape plea negotiations, a broad waiver clause can end later appellate review, and a military…
Continue reading ›Analysis of United States v. Simmons, NMCCA No. 202500108 The unpublished NMCCA decision in Simmons is a modern, post-Military Justice Act application of a much older problem addressed in United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J. 86 (C.M.A. 1977): what does trial defense counsel still owe the accused after sentence is announced? 1. The Palenius baseline…
Continue reading ›NMCCA affirmed a Marine’s child pornography pleas despite claims that counsel pressured him during a recess and failed to hire a digital forensic expert. A military defense lawyer at Cave & Freeburg explains the takeaways. (rentas-nmcca-providence-ineffective-assistance-military-defense-lawyer) United States v. Rentas: When “Trash” Almost Sank a Plea—And the IAC Claim That Followed On 30 April 2026,…
Continue reading ›United States v. Hurley (CAAF 2012) (caaf-petition-denied-hurley-military-defense-lawyer) United States v. Hurley: What a One-Line CAAF Denial Actually Means On 29 November 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) denied the petition for grant of review in United States v. Hurley, 71 M.J. 468, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 1305. The entry is…
Continue reading ›AFCCA denied a writ of error coram nobis where a former officer relied on Air Force BCMR clemency to attack her false official statement convictions. A military defense lawyer at Cave & Freeburg breaks down the ruling. (coram-nobis-bcmr-clemency-white-military-defense-counsel) Coram Nobis After a Court-Martial: Lessons from In re White On 27 April 2026, the Air Force…
Continue reading ›
