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Continue reading ›Analysis of United States v. Simmons, NMCCA No. 202500108 The unpublished NMCCA decision in Simmons is a modern, post-Military Justice Act application of a much older problem addressed in United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J. 86 (C.M.A.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 ›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 ›Here is the view of the military defense lawyers at Cave & Freeburg, LLP, on how the preemption doctrine can be applied at court-martial. United States v. Marschalek, No. ACM S32776 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 17, 2026) (unpublished), offers a useful reminder that charging decisions matter as much on appeal as they do at…
Continue reading ›The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in United States v. Doolin is a useful reminder that a guilty plea does not end the litigation. In military practice, the judge must conduct a Care inquiry—named for United States v. Care—to ensure that the plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by an adequate factual basis.…
Continue reading ›It happens. The defense becomes aware of evidence that may be of assistance either as a Brady disclosure, under the broad discovery rules, or for investigative purposes–but the Government claims it is lost. By negligence? Deliberately? What can be done? Depending on the nature of the lost or destroyed evidence, you can ask for a…
Continue reading ›Overview by Philip D. Cave of Cave & Freeburg, LLP The U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) decided this case on March 17, 2026. Airman First Class Noah Bogert pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter (Article 119, UCMJ) after negligently shooting and killing his fellow airman, BA, during a self-initiated “house clearing” exercise at…
Continue reading ›In In re LB, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals addressed an important discovery issue in a pending court-martial: when may a military judge allow the defense to seek limited information about a complaining witness’s medical or mental health treatment? The court denied the victim’s request for emergency relief and allowed the military judge’s…
Continue reading ›
