Court-Martial Trial Practice

Throwing the Backpack, Breaking the Laptop: ACCA Extends Transferred and Concurrent Intent to Property Crimes in United States v. Varlaro
Philip D. Cave

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) decided United States v. Varlaro, ARMY 20240319, 2026 CCA LEXIS 309 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 29 Jun. 2026), on 29 June 2026. The opinion answers a question the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) left open in United States v. Saul, 86 M.J. 30 (C.A.A.F. 2025):…

Continue reading ›
No DD Form 214, No Exit: ACCA Rejects a Retirement-Based Jurisdiction Challenge in United States v. Thomas
Philip D. Cave

The jurisdiction question The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) decided United States v. Thomas, ARMY 20240080, 2026 CCA LEXIS 318 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 8 Jul. 2026) (mem. op.), on 8 July 2026. An officer panel convicted Captain Thomas, contrary to his pleas, of sexual assault, two specifications of sexual assault of…

Continue reading ›
Consent, Causation, and Crime-Victim Standing: ACCA Draws a Line in United States v. Ayuso
Philip D. Cave

A partner in an affair asked to speak as a victim at sentencing. The military judge said yes. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) said no, and then affirmed the sentence anyway. The Decision On 24 July 2026, ACCA issued its summary disposition in United States v. Ayuso, ARMY 20240332 (Army Ct.…

Continue reading ›
When Your Victims’ Legal Counsel Cannot Help You: CAAF Decides United States v. Deremer
Philip D. Cave

CAAF holds that a represented Marine had a statutory right to counsel at a second NCIS interview, then holds that nothing happens when investigators ignore it. On July 23, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) decided United States v. Deremer, No. 25-0158/MC, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 616 (C.A.A.F. July 23,…

Continue reading ›
What Does “Plainly Unreasonable” Mean? NMCCA Builds the New Sentence-Review Standard in United States v. Sanchez
Philip D. Cave

The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Sanchez, No. 202500114, on May 28, 2026. A military judge at a general court-martial at MCAS Miramar convicted a 19-year-old Marine, in accordance with his pleas negotiated with the Office of Special Trial Counsel, of two specifications of sexual abuse…

Continue reading ›
Off-Ramps Ignored: NMCCA Rejects Entrapment in an Online Sting Case — United States v. Fulsom
Philip D. Cave

The Case in Brief The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals decided United States v. Fulsom, No. 202500166, on May 29, 2026. Officer members at a general court-martial at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam convicted a 19-year-old Lance Corporal, contrary to his pleas, of attempted sexual assault of a child and attempted sexual abuse of a…

Continue reading ›
Where Does “Conduct Unbecoming” End? NMCCA Divides Over Article 133 in United States v. Durbin
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
You Can’t Run From “Illegal” Pretrial Confinement: NMCCA Decides United States v. Benton
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals has Reimonenq for a second time and affirms.
Philip D. Cave

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 ›
What does trial defense counsel still owe the accused after sentence is announced?
Philip D. Cave

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 ›

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