United States v. Jacinto — Case Analysis U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces | Decided February 2, 2026 What Happened The Navy court-martialed Aviation Structural Mechanic First Class Salvador Jacinto for sexually abusing his minor stepdaughter, E.B. A panel convicted him of rape of a child and three specifications of sexual abuse of…
Continue reading ›18 U.S.C. § 922, part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, is one of the most important federal statutes regulating firearms and ammunition in the United States. It delineates specific prohibitions on the possession, sale, transfer, shipment, and receipt of firearms and ammunition under various circumstances. The statute aims to keep firearms out of…
Continue reading ›For those who practiced under the “old” Article 32, UCMJ, it was considered an important stage in whether a person would be prosecuted at a general court-martial. Any military defense counsel who practiced before 2020, they would remember what the original Court of Military Appeals (CMA) (the name has since been changed to U.S. Court…
Continue reading ›Summary and Analysis of the Opinion: Deference Owed to the Military Justice System and the Limits of Collateral Review by Federal District Courts The review is based on Csady v. Ashworth, but it is equally applicable when federal courts examine habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners under 28 U.S.C. 2241. I. Overview and Holding The…
Continue reading ›You are on trial for an offense and the prosecution wants to introduce evidence against you under Military Rule of Evidence 404(b). How does that work and what can your military defense lawyer do to exclude such evidence. The first step is to object to the evidence before trial by filing a motion in-limine. Your…
Continue reading ›In United States v. Urieta, The appellant, a specialist in the U.S. Army, was charged with multiple sexual assault offenses and a false official statement. During voir dire at his court-martial, he challenged the selection of Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bravo as a panel member, arguing actual and implied bias based on SFC Bravo’s statements…
Continue reading ›Statutes of limitations are legal deadlines for filing criminal charges. They are essential because: Statutes of limitations are crucial in preserving evidence and ensuring a fair trial. As time passes, evidence can deteriorate, witnesses can forget details or become unavailable, and memories can become less reliable. This can significantly hinder the fairness of a trial,…
Continue reading ›Reasonable doubt is the fundamental pillar protecting the rights of accused service members in a court martial. It is a legal standard that ensures a fair and just process and safeguards against the potential for wrongful convictions. The prosecutor must prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, a crucial safeguard against false convictions. The BRD…
Continue reading ›The Army Court of Criminal Appeals has issued an important decision in United States v. Brassfield, __ M.J. ___ (Army Ct. Crim. App. 2024) (en banc) The court reaffirms that a servicemember accused of assault against their child may raise the defense of “it was parental discipline.” The definition of what is or isn’t criminal…
Continue reading ›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 ›
