The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Durbin, No. 202400333, on June 2, 2026, over a dissent. A military judge sitting alone at a special court-martial at Camp Lejeune convicted Captain Durbin, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133,…
Continue reading ›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Continue reading ›Analysis of United States v. Simmons, NMCCA No. 202500108 The unpublished NMCCA decision in Simmons is a modern, post-Military Justice Act application of a much older problem addressed in United States v. Palenius, 2 M.J. 86 (C.M.A.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 ›NMCCA affirmed a Marine’s child pornography pleas despite claims that counsel pressured him during a recess and failed to hire a digital forensic expert. A military defense lawyer at Cave & Freeburg explains the takeaways. (rentas-nmcca-providence-ineffective-assistance-military-defense-lawyer) United States v. Rentas: When “Trash” Almost Sank a Plea—And the IAC Claim That Followed On 30 April 2026,…
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 ›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…
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 ›
