Court-Martial Trial Practice

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…

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 Apr. 17, 2026) (unpublished), offers a useful reminder that charging decisions matter as much on appeal as they do at…

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.…

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…

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…

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…

In United States v. Fischer, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals explained how military appellate courts interpret plea agreements and what an appellant must show to set aside a term of sentence as inconsistent with the agreement. The decision matters because plea agreements often control the most important part of a court-martial: sentencing. The…

United States v. Navarro · ARMY 20250171 · Army Court of Criminal Appeals · March 30, 2026 What Happened An Army Specialist pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography under Article 134 of the UCMJ. His defense lawyer negotiated a plea deal that kept him out of prison entirely. The only punishment: a bad-conduct discharge. No…

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…

In re LB, Misc. Dkt. No. 2025-14 Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals — Decided 19 March 2026 OVERVIEW The AFCCA denied all three prongs of victim LB’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed under Article 6b(a)(9), UCMJ, arising from the ongoing general court-martial of TSgt Irvin Bryant Jr. at Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. Bryant…