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 ›The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals set aside an Airman’s drug conviction because the Government failed to prove delta-8 THC was a Schedule I controlled substance. A military defense lawyer at Cave & Freeburg explains what it means. (delta-8-thc-article-112a-byrd-military-defense-lawyer) Delta-8 THC and Article 112a, UCMJ: Why the Government Lost in United States v. Byrd…
Continue reading ›A change to Article 66, UCMJ, has created difficulties in interpreting and applying the factual sufficiency standard of review and in deciding whether a charge should be set aside. Note: this change only affects cases where ALL findings of guilt are based on conduct alleged to have been committed before 1 January 2021. If it’s…
Continue reading ›Your military defense counsel will discuss with you the terms and requirements of a pretrial agreement, should you decide it is in your best interest to get “a deal.” However, once that deal is signed, the judge accepts it, and it is now on appeal, it is hard to get the appellate court to reduce…
Continue reading ›Summary and Analysis of the Opinion: Deference Owed to the Military Justice System and the Limits of Collateral Review by Federal District Courts The review is based on Csady v. Ashworth, but it is equally applicable when federal courts examine habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners under 28 U.S.C. 2241. I. Overview and Holding The…
Continue reading ›In United States v. Urieta, The appellant, a specialist in the U.S. Army, was charged with multiple sexual assault offenses and a false official statement. During voir dire at his court-martial, he challenged the selection of Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bravo as a panel member, arguing actual and implied bias based on SFC Bravo’s statements…
Continue reading ›When the government does not like the decision of a Court of Criminal Appeals–because it favors the Appellant, the Government has an automatic “appeal.” It’s called certifying the issue. This is an example of unfairness and discrimination in the appellate process which military defense lawyers are well aware of. So, how does that work. The…
Continue reading ›Generally When deciding what a word or term in a statute means, the rule of statutory interpretation is to give the word or term its plain and ordinary meaning. This is known as the plain meaning rule. If the word or term is clear and unambiguous, then the court will not look beyond the text…
Continue reading ›Have you been convicted at court-martial? Want a speedy review of your case for appeal? There are two major roadblocks: (1) having the record of trial delivered to and docketed with the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, or Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals and (2) the workload of the military appellate defense counsel. The…
Continue reading ›YOUR MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD CHALLENGE THE APPLICATION OF THE MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 311. THE RULE VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. WE ARE CHALLENGING THAT AT THE U. S. SUPREME COURT NOW. In many courts-martial, your military defense counsel will have to deal with evidence obtained from digital devices, like cell phones. The prosecution’s use…
Continue reading ›
