Court-Martial Trial Practice

Spousal privilege
Philip D. Cave

The NMCCA has issued an interesting published opinion on a government appeal. United States v. Rios. From the opinion. The appellee is currently facing trial by special court-martial on numerous charges regarding larceny from the Marine Corps Exchange (MCX) on Camp Pendleton, California. He is alleged to have conspired with his wife to commit larceny[.]…

Continue reading ›
Latorre redux
Philip D. Cave

I posted the other day about Latorre v. FCI Elkton. A colleague who’s thoughts I value very highly had some things to say. Unfortunately LaTorrehandled his matter pro se and didn’t do it well, and so, got the “canned” decision that circulated some years back out of the federal judicial center. Just as unfortunate, it…

Continue reading ›
Worth-some-study: Future effect of technology
Philip D. Cave

Worth-the-read is A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, is the source for the ABA article I just posted about ancient documents. There is another proposal in the Draft relevant to technology. The drafters are suggesting changing FRE 902, which as we know…

Continue reading ›
Ancient effect of technology
Philip D. Cave

The abundance of electronically stored documents is spurring a committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference to propose abolishing the “ancient documents” rule. The rule—803(16) of the Federal Rules of Evidence—allows the admission of documents that would usually be banned as hearsay if the documents are at least 20 years old and appear authentic. The National…

Continue reading ›
Latorre rising aborted
Philip D. Cave

Some may remember United States v. Latorre, No. ACM 34670 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. 3 April, 2002), 64 M.J. 80 (C.A.A.F. 2006). The case had something of a tortured appellate history, ultimately leading to a habeas corpus petition in federal court. See Background, at p.1. Like the mythical Phoenix, Latorre sought to get some lift…

Continue reading ›
Yes they can–yes the CCA can order a sentence-only rehearing
Philip D. Cave

The problem is that the CCA’s don’t do that enough. But at least they have the power. In United States v. Quick: The underlying issue is whether Article 66(d), UCMJ, authorizes the CCAs to order sentence-only rehearings. The government argues that the CCAs do not have that authority and asks that we overrule this court’s…

Continue reading ›
A prosecutor’s duty
Philip D. Cave

Amici are former federal prosecutors and senior Justice Department and government officials who have dedicated many years of service to the criminal justice system and have a continuing interest in preserving the fair and effective administration of criminal trials.2 As such, amici understand the duty of prosecutors “to seek justice within the bounds of the…

Continue reading ›
Quote of the day-week-year
Philip D. Cave

Sixty years after Congress created the UCMJ to protect accused servicemembers from abusive and arbitrary punishment, a significant faction in Congress now believes it must be almost completely dismantled and restructured because is is not being used aggressively enough. Multiple federal organizations and a fair number of outside parties consider the notion of due process…

Continue reading ›
Worth the Read from Military Law Review
Philip D. Cave

There are some interesting articles for military justice practitioners in the Summer 2015, MLR. Barracks, Dormitories, and Capitol Hill: Finding Justice in the Divergent Politics of Military and College Sexual Assault  3. By Major Robert E. Murdough.pdf Rudderless: 15 Years and Still Little Direction on the Boundaries of Military Rule of Evidence 513 4. By…

Continue reading ›
I thought prosecutors knew they couldn’t comment on exercise of right to silence
Philip D. Cave

At trial, the Government repeatedly sought to use Edwards’s silence after he was Mirandized as substantive proof of guilt as well as for impeachment purposes. Over Edwards’s objection, the Government emphasized in its closing that Edwards had remained silent after law enforcement showed him the contents of the suitcase, suggesting a culpable state of mind.…

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