On March 25, 2026, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision in United States v. Williams-Clark (ARMY 20230185). The court set aside a sexual assault conviction — one that carried a two-year confinement term — not on the merits, but because the verdict itself was fatally ambiguous. The military judge convicted…
Continue reading ›Courts-martial convictions come with a constitutional guarantee: the government must move your case forward without unreasonable delay. When it does not, appellate courts can reduce your sentence or grant other relief. Published March 27, 2026 · Cave & Freeburg LLP The Short Answer Every service member convicted at a court-martial has a Fifth Amendment due…
Continue reading ›United States v. Jacinto — Case Analysis U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces | Decided February 2, 2026 What Happened The Navy court-martialed Aviation Structural Mechanic First Class Salvador Jacinto for sexually abusing his minor stepdaughter, E.B. A panel convicted him of rape of a child and three specifications of sexual abuse of…
Continue reading ›Published by Cave & Freeburg LLP | Military Justice Defense Attorneys Case Citation: United States v. Castillo, No. ACM 40705 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2026) | Unpublished A recent Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals decision — United States v. Castillo — raises an important question every military defense lawyer must understand: when…
Continue reading ›Overview The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) decided United States v. Selleneit on 17 March 2026, affirming the findings and sentence of a general court-martial tried at Naval Station Rota, Spain. Fire Controlman Aegis Petty Officer Second Class (E-5) George B. Selleneit faced charges of sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, and unlawful…
Continue reading ›When “Not Guilty” Still Costs You: Acquitted Conduct Sentencing in Military Court-Martial Being found not guilty on a charge should mean something. But in both federal and military courts, a “not guilty” verdict on one count can still drive up the punishment on counts where the jury did convict you. This practice — called acquitted…
Continue reading ›Plea agreement bad faith by trial counsel does not just harm one defendant. It fractures the foundation that military justice runs on. A March 2026 ruling from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals—United States v. Gonzalez—puts that reality on the record and demands attention from every military legal professional. What Happened in Gonzalez Marine…
Continue reading ›Background An enlisted panel convicted Staff Sergeant David Ingram of attempted sexual abuse of a child, attempted receipt of child pornography, and solicitation of child pornography distribution. The charges arose from messages Ingram exchanged on the Whisper app with an adult decoy posing as a fifteen-year-old as part of a “to catch a predator” operation.…
Continue reading ›United States v. Munn (ARMY 20250252) United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals — Summary Disposition (25 Feb 2026) Procedural Posture PFC Elijah T. Munn pleaded guilty at a special court-martial to attempted patronage of a prostitute under Article 80, UCMJ. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the government moved to dismiss: with dismissal “without prejudice to ripen into prejudice” upon…
Continue reading ›Government appeals under Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involve some of the most procedurally complex cases in the military justice system. When the Government challenges a military judge’s ruling during an ongoing court-martial, the case unexpectedly shifts from trial litigation to appellate practice. Defense counsel must quickly defend a favorable ruling before…
Continue reading ›
