Articles Posted in Up Periscope

Convening authority actions
Philip D. Cave

On 22 March 2012, CAAF made summary disposition of United States v. Sobenes. No. 11-0566/MC. U.S. v. Alan D. SOBENES. CCA 201000381. On consideration of the petition for grant of review of the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, we note that the convening authority approved the sentence, which included…

Continue reading ›
Constellation of errors
Philip D. Cave

From time to time I raise a “constellation of error” in an appellate brief. Otherwise known as the doctrine of cumulative error. See United States v. Gray , 51 M.J. 1, 61 (C.A.A.F. 1999). We hold, therefore, that this case “falls . . . within the ambit of the doctrine of cumulative error — under…

Continue reading ›
Notice, what is it?
Philip D. Cave

Various rules in the R.C.M. and the Military Rules of Evidence require notice to the other side. Some rules are explicit, for example Mil. R. Evid. 412 requires notice no less than five days “before entry of pleas”, unless the military judge sets an earlier time. Mil. R. Evid. 412(c)(1)(A), or see Mil. R. Evid.…

Continue reading ›
In the Seventh
Philip D. Cave

Judge Posner has authored an interesting opinion in United States v. Flores-Lopez. In the case police seized a cell-phone and took some phone numbers. But in the process of deciding the limited Fourth Amendment issue, Judge Posner raises (but leaves to another day) the legitimate question that today’s cellphones are in fact computers and therefore…

Continue reading ›
Computer crime and the Fifth and Tenth
Philip D. Cave

Thanks to Volokh Conspiracy here is an important case relevant to “searches” of computers. We hold that the act of Doe’s decryption and production of the contents of the hard drives would sufficiently implicate the Fifth Amendment privilege. We reach this holding by concluding that (1) Doe’s decryption and production of the contents of the…

Continue reading ›
“Jury” instructions
Philip D. Cave

From time to time I’ve referred to federal jury instructions to help craft a “novel” members instruction. Sometimes you have to refer to federal instructions for other reasons. For example, I just completed a litigated “wire fraud” case, 18 U. S. Code Sec. 1343, where we needed to figure out the elements for assimilation under…

Continue reading ›
In the NMCCA (Stratton)
Philip D. Cave

NMCCA dismisses a conviction for consensual homosexual sodomy in United States v. Stratton. It’s unpublished but worth the read. Appellant was accused of forcible sodomy, but was convicted of consensual sodomy. That means Lawrence and Marcum had to be discussed. Read this case for the following: A discussion and reiteration of a “private” location is…

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