Articles Posted in caaf

CAAF grant and remand – de facto immunity
Philip D. Cave

Here’s an interesting grant and remand from CAAF. No. 10-0265/AF. U.S. v. Douglas E. LONG. CCA 37044 (2009 CCA LEXIS 477). WHETHER APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE ASSURANCES OF AIR FORCE OFFICIALS PROVIDED HIM WITH DE FACTO IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION. The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is set…

Continue reading ›
CAAF grants
Philip D. Cave

Here are some CAAF grants/issues that should resonate in the field. No. 10-0332/AF. U.S. v. Yolanda FLORES. CCA S31621. Review granted on the following issue: WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL IMPROPERLY COMMENTED ON APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT THUS DEPRIVING APPELLANT OF A FAIR TRIAL. No. 10-0334/AF. U.S. v. Dennis R. SAVARD. CCA 37346. Review granted…

Continue reading ›
Failure to report
Philip D. Cave

In United States v. Serianne, the CAAF affirmed an NMCCA decision that a Navy order to report civilian DWI/DUI convictions was unlawful and not enforceable at court-martial. Navy Times reports: The Navy’s self-reporting requirement for drunken driving arrests will fundamentally change as a result of a recent military court ruling, the Navy’s top lawyer said.…

Continue reading ›
U. S. v. Roach-CAAF
Philip D. Cave

United States v. Roach has been returned to AFCCA for a second time. Initially the case was sent back because appellant’s case was decided before his counsel submitted a brief, and because the chief judge on his panel had made some public comments relating to the case. This time the case goes back because the…

Continue reading ›
CAAF decision
Philip D. Cave

CAAF has decided United States v. Bagstad. Judge Stuckey wrote for himself, Effron and Ryan, with Baker writing a dissent for himself and Erdmann. We granted review to determine whether the military judge abused his discretion in denying Appellant’s challenge for cause against Captain (Capt) Stojka, who sat with his subordinate on a court-martial panel…

Continue reading ›
Judicial testimony – not
Philip D. Cave

United States v. Matthews is an interesting new Army decision. In this case the appellate courts ordered a DuBay hearing. During that hearing the prior military judge testified as to his rationale for various decisions at trial. Using that testimony, the Army Court of Criminal Appeals applied the harmless beyond reasonable doubt standard to findings…

Continue reading ›
First CAAF decision
Philip D. Cave

CAAF has decided United States v. Campbell, __ M.J. ___ (C.A.A.F. 2009). We granted review of three issues raised by the decision of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA), as follows: I. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REASSESSING APPELLANT’S SENTENCE, AS (1) ITS REASSESSMENT CALCULUS WAS BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUS…

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