Military service is a noble calling, but it can also lead to complex legal situations. When facing accusations or disciplinary actions, having experienced legal representation is crucial. Cave & Freeburg, LLP stands firmly behind service members across all branches (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard) with a proven track record of success…
Continue reading ›In the context of a court-martial, ineffective assistance of counsel refers to a claim by a military defendant that their defense counsel provided them with legal representation that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that this deficient representation prejudiced the outcome of their case. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), military…
Continue reading ›A person being tried at court-martial may have their case dismissed before the members (jury) reach any findings. One way that can happen is when the military judge declares a mistrial. Your military defense lawyer should know what to do if the same charges are re-referred to a court-martial–the prosecution taking a second attempt to…
Continue reading ›NMCCA has decided United States v. Owens. The appellant asserts that the attorney-client relationship with his detailed trial defense counsel was terminated without good cause, leaving the appellant legally and factually without post-trial representation. The basis for the appellant’s claim is that substitute counsel failed to establish an attorney-client relationship with the appellant prior to…
Continue reading ›Navy. 1. United States v. Curry. This is a BAH case. The Government proceeded on a theory of a fraudulent marriage as a basis to commit larceny by trick. The court held oral argument in this case and specified two additional issues to the parties.2 Additional pleadings were later filed. After carefully considering the record…
Continue reading ›Mercury News is reporting that United States v. Wuterich is delayed until 24 January 2011, pending a resolution of their issue of defense counsel representation. AP reports the same, as does The Canadian Press.
Continue reading ›United States v. Sagona, sentenced at court-martial on 8 May 2008, appeal decided 30 September 2010. The issue was IAC of trial defense counsel who allegedly failed to investigate and advise on a potential defense of immunity. R.C.M. 704 covers the issues of immunity, tempered by case law. Basically only the GCMCA can grant immunity,…
Continue reading ›I posted yesterday on a new Army case dealing with instructions on an affirmative defense in a court-martial under the UCMJ. Today I’m posting on United States v. Ramon, an unpublished opinion from the NMCCA dated 28 September 2010. In his sole assignment of error, the appellant alleges that the military judges erred in failing…
Continue reading ›United States v. Stanley. The appellant raised eight errors through counsel and an additional six in accordance with United States v. Grostefon. One assignment of error warrants discussion, but no relief. Specifically, appellant alleges that the military judge erred by failing to properly instruct the panel regarding appellant’s right during mutual combat to exercise self-defense…
Continue reading ›Couple of new NMCCA decisions on some court-martial appeals. United States v. Soucie. In this case NMCCA decides that the military judge failed to adequately inquire into a duress defense on providency. The accused raised six errors and the NMCCA specified an additional error. The government agreed that a charge under Article 123a should be…
Continue reading ›
