At Cave & Freeburg, our military defense lawyers bring decades of combined experience litigating appeals before every Service Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). We study every new statutory amendment and every new judicial interpretation because appellate law shifts quickly—and those shifts can shape your future.…
Continue reading ›Military commanders rely on obedience to accomplish missions, protect forces, and enforce discipline. Servicemembers understand that duty demands compliance with lawful orders. But the law does not allow blind obedience. When an order crosses the boundary into criminality, a servicemember must refuse it—even in combat. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces sharpened this…
Continue reading ›When a service member faces investigation, court-martial, or conviction—every phase demands strategic legal representation rooted in military-justice experience. The recent case of United States v. Greene-Watson (No. 24-0096) illustrates how nuanced evidentiary rules, intense procedural scrutiny, and appellate risk converge in military justice. Here’s why the team at Cave & Freeburg LLP should be your…
Continue reading ›How Cave & Freeburg Uses This Case to Protect Servicemembers at Trial and on Appeal At Cave & Freeburg, we read every new military appellate decision as soon as it comes out. We do that because each opinion—published or unpublished—reveals how judges understand the rules, how they react to imperfections in the military justice process,…
Continue reading ›NCIS Rights Advisements and the Line Between Clarification and Misleading: A Short Analysis of United States v. Rivera At Cave & Freeburg, we study every new appellate opinion because each decision reveals how investigators question service members and how courts evaluate those interrogations. These cases help us identify issues that may make the difference in…
Continue reading ›When “Knowing Possession” Becomes the Decisive Issue: ACCA Sets Aside Guilty Plea in United States v. Douangdara We at Cave & Freeburg read every new military appellate decision when it comes out. We do that to stay current, identify potential issues that might help you, and evaluate how each opinion can strengthen your case. Our…
Continue reading ›Summary and Analysis of United States v. Adams (C.A.A.F. 2025) Per curiam; writ-appeal petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I. Procedural Posture and Case Summary Sergeant Thomas M. Adams petitioned the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that his conviction violated Rule for Courts-Martial (R.C.M.) 707 and that…
Continue reading ›The U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition in March. See, e.g., Lauren Keenan, Hegseth seeks death penalty for Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. SAN, 24 September 2025. A. Sec. Hegseth is not seeking the death penalty; that’s been adjudged and affirmed, but he is seeking approval so an execution can be scheduled and proceed. Under…
Continue reading ›Informational Note for DoD Personnel: “Pentagon will now drug-test for psychedelic mushrooms” What’s new—key points from Task & Purpose article What has not changed under military law Relevant appellate cases (illustrative, recent and classic) Testing & proof—what the psilocin panel means in practice Europe-specific risk notes (OCONUS) Health & policy context (don’t confuse research with…
Continue reading ›Info Note for U.S. Military Personnel in Europe Topic: Bicycling while intoxicated (BUI) overseas—what an Army Lawyer article means for you Bottom line (read this first) What the article explains—clearly and practically The Army Lawyer piece (Masterton, 30 May 2025) walks through why Article 113 applies to bikes and how jurisdiction, penalties, and license actions…
Continue reading ›
