Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Crawford at sentencing
Philip D. Cave

The CAAF held that there is no right of confrontation at sentencing. The other rules do apply, such as hearsay, unless you relax the rules (something I rarely if ever do). United States v. McDonald, 55 M.J. 173 (C.A.A.F. 2001); United States v. George, 52 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2000). The question in the title of…

Continue reading ›
Confronting experts
Philip D. Cave

Now that the current slew of confrontation cases are decided it’s time to regroup. Let’s start with my former evidence professor, Paul Gianelli (a former Army JA). Confrontation, Experts, and Rule 703 Paul C. Giannelli Case Western Reserve University – School of Law 20 J.L. & Pol’y 443 (2012) Case Legal Studies Research Paper No.…

Continue reading ›
In the Supremes
Philip D. Cave

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSBlog has a preview of Perry v. New Hampshire. At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument on a case seeking clarification of when trial courts must exclude the testimony of an eyewitness to a crime because the testimony was unreliable. In the case of…

Continue reading ›
Police created exigent circumstances
Philip D. Cave

I don’t know that we’ve had this issue come up in military cases, but there’s a first time for everything. Plus this case highlights potentially confusing “tests” that arise from different courts. During oral argument in Kentucky v. King on Wednesday, the Court struggled to find the proper test for determining when police are prohibited…

Continue reading ›
CAAF publishes Hutchins
Philip D. Cave

United States v. Hutchins. Chief Judge Effron writes for a unanimous court. The Judge Advocate General of the Navy certified the case to this Court for review of the following issues: I. WHETHER THE NAVY-MARINE CORPS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING, INTER ALIA, THAT THE MILITARY JUDGE SEVERED THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH CAPTAIN…

Continue reading ›
Two Supremes grants
Philip D. Cave

Two Supreme Court grants of certiorari should be of interest to MJ practitioners. Here are links to SCOTUSBLog for the case materials. Missouri v. Frye Issue: Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel’s error in failing to communicate a plea offer,…

Continue reading ›
Post-trial duties
Philip D. Cave

NMCCA has decided United States v. Owens. The appellant asserts that the attorney-client relationship with his detailed trial defense counsel was terminated without good cause, leaving the appellant legally and factually without post-trial representation. The basis for the appellant’s claim is that substitute counsel failed to establish an attorney-client relationship with the appellant prior to…

Continue reading ›

Client Reviews

Many years after retiring from the USN, I suddenly found myself in a very unwelcome legal matter with the Navy. It was a total shock and I was very concerned as to the impact this would have on me and my...

Rob

I was facing accusations that would not only ruin my career but my life. When I hired Mr. Freeburg, he gave me the hope that everything would be turn out great. He put a great team together along with my...

Air Force Anonymous

Phil Cave has helped me through NJP and restoration of my security clearance. He even came to visit me in Spain. I never thought I would work again and he certainly through with advise and guidance that we're...

Bryan

Mr. Nathan Freeburg fought and won a war for me. A war where my life was on the line. The week of trial was extremely long but he never seemed like he was tired. The prosecution were getting whittled down each...

Navy Anonymous

Mr. Cave saved my military retirement! His promise to me from day one was that he would fight as hard as he could he right the wring that had been done to me. And he did! I am so very thankful and grateful to...

Crystal

Mr. Freeburg is passionate about justice and upholding the law and dignity of the court. He is brave and bold in his ability to represent his clients amidst the attempted intimidation and procedural pressure...

Navy Represented

The Army and prosecution was pushing for me to take a Chapter 10. But Mr. Freeburg made me confident we could win. We went to trial and he crushed them in cross examination and he saved my career.

Vince

Contact Us

  1. 1 Free Consultation
  2. 2 Over 40 Years of Experience
  3. 3 Dedicated to Military Law
Fill out the contact form or call us at 703-298-9562 to schedule your free consultation.

Leave Us a Message