Avvo Rating Top Attorney
Avvo Rating badge
Federal Bar Association
Virginia State Bar
Department of the Army

Older Cases Here

-- Executive Officer, USS IOWA (BB61) during the investigation after the turret explosion.

-- 0-8 initially investigated for very serious sexual assault offenses. Received Secretarial punitive letter, 30 days arrest in quarters, and later was retired at a reduced rank.

-- 0-7 investigated for Joint Ethics Regulation issues.

-- 0-6 commanding officer charged with negligent grounding of a vessel.

-- Commodore charged with negligence resulting in death and injuries during a Close-In-Weapons System exercise. Represented/advised several Navy personnel who were Anthrax refusers.

-- Army O - 3 - Gen. Off. Article 15. Charge dismissed at hearing.

-- Army Nat'l Guard E - 8 - Gen. Off. Article 15. Charge dismissed at hearing.

-- Navy O-3E found guilty at NJP of DWI. Then processed for administrative separation based on misconduct. In this case we did what neither the command nor the military defense counsel had done. We consulted with an expert. Based on that expert's review we were able to show that the .BAC, reported as 0.145 should have been reported as 0.0145. Based on that "new" evidence, the Board found NO misconduct, and the LT was returned to duty.

Navy O-6, suspected of communicating threats, email stalking, and orders violations. Non-punitive letter of reprimand, and retirement in grade.

USMC O-5 ordered to appear before a retirement grade determination board based on allegations of spouse abuse. Allowed to retire in his current grade.

United States v. O-6. Case began as a serious sexual assault allegation. Resolved as an Article 15 for conduct unbecoming.

United States v. E-4. Accused of sexual assault on two different complaining witnesses and assault on a third. Resolved through administrative separation in lieu of trial.

United States v. E-5. Recruiter accused of falsifying recruiting documents. Charges referred to Special Court-Martial. Resolved with written counseling and early retirement.

U.S. servicemen arrested for public indecency; client makes formal apology (An apology is considered a virtue in Japan. Apologies show that a person takes responsibility and avoids blaming others. When one apologizes and shows one's remorse, the Japanese are more willing to forgive); Japanese Prosecution suspended for sailor accused of nudity in cafe (and jurisdiction ceded to the U.S. under the SOFA). Case disposed of at Captain's Mast (Article. 15), followed by administrative separation.

United States v. Army E-3. Accused of raping spouse on four occasions, twice with a weapon; raping a girlfriend twice; multiple assaults, aggravated assaults, and threats against spouse; multiple assaults and weapon related threats against a second girlfriend; obstruction of justice. Found guilty of several assaults and threats on spouse and the second girlfriend, not guilty of all rapes, and most of the assaults. Sentenced to 18 months confinement and a bad conduct discharge.

United States v. Army E-4: Accused of assaulting a female Soldier and accused of sexually assaulting another female Soldier. After a contested judge along trial - found not guilty of the charges.

United States v. Marine E-5: Client accused of attempting to steal a total of $2400.00 from his roommate's bank account, misuse of a government travel card while PCSing, false official statements, and wire fraud. After a contested trial found guilty of attempted theft and false official statement, not guilty to misuse of GTCC and wire fraud. Prosecution argued for 18 months confinement, sentenced to six.

United States v. Air Force E-3: Client accused of failing to go to daily formation for about five months, failing to check out and PCS, failing a check-out appointment, false official statement about a PT test, and dereliction in not PCSing. Basically the allegations surround, according to the prosecution, client hiding out on this training base for five months because he didn't want to transfer to a line unit. After a contested trial convicted of "diverse" failures to go and false official statement, not guilty to remainder. Military judge sentenced to four months confinement. However, the judge also granted 91 days credit for unlawful pretrial punishment in violation of Article 13, UCMJ. By the way, this case is one of several examples I have of why it is not good or useful to seek the assistance of the Congressman.

United States v. Army E-1. Client one of 13 accused of mutiny, kidnapping, multiple assaults, and property damage at the Maximum SHU, USDB, Leavenworth. Prosecution took the position that he started the mutiny and was a ringleader. Plead not guilty to all charges. Found not guilty of kidnapping and an assault. Sentenced to five years confinement. Military judge gave nine months Article 13 credit. In addition, judge took into account other practices post mutiny that were not Article 13, but were "almost" UCI, and gave two years confinement less than he would of. Another inmate who helped start the mutiny and assaults plead guilty to all charges. He was sentenced to 15 years confinement, which was reduced to eight years with a PTA.

United States v. Army E-5 (update). Client initially accused of rape and sexual assaults on a military spouse and an indecent act on a Soldier. After Article 32, and shortly before trial the complaining witnesses to the rape came forward to "tell the truth," and confessed they'd lied - there was no rape. Summary court-martial on the unrelated indecent act (sentenced to 15 days restriction). Aspects of this case and another case of mine (Walton) are reported here and here.

United States v. Army E-7. Initially convicted of BAH fraud in excess of $132K and associated charges; sentenced to a BCD and six months confinement. New trial ordered by the appeals court based on newly discovered evidence. At new trial convicted of attempted fraud in excess of $500.00; sentenced to RIR to E-6, $1000.00 forfeiture per month for two months.

United States v. Velez. This case required extensive assistance from a forensic crime scene perspective as well as a forensic pyschologist and a forensic psychiatrist. The R.C.M. 706 board found a "brief psychotic episode" but not major. The defense experts found a major mental defect. However, neither rose to the level of an affirmative defense of insanity on the charges to which Velez plead guilty to. The prosecution dismissed a premeditated murder charge. In this case the defense had made a PTA offer of 20 years in February 2010, and an offer of 25 years in June of 2010 - both of which were rejected. The prosecution came to the defense in early 2011 with a request for an offer of 28 years.

United States v. Air Force E-5: Rape. In this case we were able to mount an aggressive defense at the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. Subsequently all charges were dismissed.

United States v. Coast Guard E-3: Allegations of aggravated sexual assault and two other sexual assaults on one complaining witness (CW) and sexual assault on another CW. Contested enlisted members.

United States v. Army E-4. Initially this case began as an Article 32, UCMJ, case, with allegations of multiple aggravated assaults, wilful discharge of a firearm, property damage, multiple communications of threats. Initially we were able to convince the convening authority that the case should be handled at special court-martial. Then we were able to get a pretrial agreement which limited any confinement to eight months. After entering mixed pleas we presented a compelling sentencing case from the Soldiers prior company and battalion commander and platoon sergeant and his parents. The primary extenuation and mitigation evidence was excessive alcohol use incident to a return from combat. The prosecution asked the military judge to sentence the Soldier to the maximum of 12 months confinement, a bad conduct discharge, reduction to E-1, and forfeitures. The military judge sentenced the Soldier to 103 days confinement (equal to the pretrial confinement credit) and reduction to E-3.

United States v. Navy E-4: Initially an investigation for misuse of the ship's computers and networks this turned into a child pornography case. During the preparation for trial we were able to turn the NCIS computer forensics examiner into a more defense friendly witness. This happened because he knew and saw my expert sitting there listening to him. Ultimately the client was found not guilty of possession and distribution of child pornography alleged under both Article 134 (GoD and SD) and 18 U. S. Code §2252A(5)(a)(b).

United States v. USMC E-6: Found not guilty by members after a contested trial of sexual assaults with junior Marines: aggravated sexual assault (rape) and wrongful sexual contact (indecent assault) on a second complaining witness. The rape allegation arose when the complaining witness was herself pending court-martial for drinking under age, fraternization and adultery with the accused, and immediately after she'd attended mandatory sexual assault training. Prior to the sexual assault training she'd told friends and investigators that she went out with the accused knowing that sex might happen, that she'd not had alcohol because she'd been carded at the restaurant, that she loved the accused, that she went with him to WalMart with the intention of buying "protection," and that she'd have sex with him again if she could, and actually met up with the accused again a few days after the first consensual sex. While pending a potential court-martial she attended mandatory sexual assault training and was given the road-map on how to complain. Not surprisingly her own court-martial for fraternization did not go anywhere.

United States v. Army E-5: This was the last of seven related cases at Fort Bragg. The group was initially charged with voluntary manslaughter under Article 119, UCMJ. Here the client ultimately plead guilty at SPCM to an assault and battery. He was sentenced to a one paygrade reduction and 30 days hard labor without confinement. Here is an interesting article about one of the co-accused, United States v. Boyle, which gives a flavor of the overall case. (It was announced in late September that Boyle's sentence was reduced.)

United States v. Army E-8: This was an Army TCS Task Force/TDY prosecution. After the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation charges were ultimately referred to a BCD special court-martial. Pretrial litigation resulted in some charges being merged on multiplicity grounds, and some limits being placed on the prosecution evidence. During trial the judge deferred ruling on a R.C.M. 917 motion to dismiss after the prosecution rested. After the Members entered findings the military judge then took up the issue of which charges if any should be dismissed. Using the analysis from United States v. Griffith, 27 M.J. 42 (C.M.A. 1988), the military judge dismissed a substantial portion of the charges: a part of a conspiracy charge, a false official statement charge, the two frauds against the government charges, and reduced the alleged larceny from over $500.00 to "some amount." The Members understandably seemed a little shocked and confused. Ultimately they gave a sentence of 90 days confinement, reduction to E-6, and forfeitures of pay for six months. There was no BCD and no fine. {Update] This 24 year veteran was allowed to retire.

United States v. Navy E-7: The client had been about to pin on WO2 rank when the investigation began into alleged child molestation charges. He had confessed to his wife some years ago and she did nothing. However, the marriage fell apart and he again confessed to his wife. At this point the client became a serial confessor - local police, NCIS, CPS, FAP, to anyone who would listen. At the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation we were able to convince the IO that there was no rape, and that two or three of the indecent acts charges were uncorroborated. The CA in the referral decision agreed not to refer a rape charge.

United States v. Trew, 68 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2010): This case began for me when the client first contacted me about an ongoing NCIS investigation. Against my advice he talked with NCIS and made admissions. Subsequently he was prosecuted. At the trial we were successful in having the military judge exclude certain of the admissions to NCIS because there was no corroboration of them as required by Mil. R. Evid. 304(g). Subsequently, the actions of the prosecution and the military judge lead to an "ambiguous" guilty finding. We litigated this case to try and avoid a sex offender registration situation, which we were able to do. On appeal all the charges were dismissed with prejudice, which means now there is no conviction either.

United States v. Marine E-2: Possession and distribution of CP via Limewire. Negotiated a PTA sentence cap of 12 months, sentenced to 24 months. As a result of a post-trial clemency package the CA reduced the DD to a BCD and approved an additional two months of suspended confinement.

United States v. Navy E-5: Here the client was accused with having sexual intercourse with a person under 16 (15 years and 11 months at the time), false official statement to the CO about the girls whereabouts, and endangering the health and welfare of the girl by removing her from her parental care and out of state. After a vigorous defense presentation at the Article 32, the IO, recommended SCM. The case has been disposed of at summary court-martial. A determination of whether or not the client will be processed for administrative separation is pending.

United States v. AF E-5: 20 months ago the OSI began investigating the client as "the biggest drug dealer on base." Ultimately, all the OSI could come up with was a CW who was able to obtain a single Ritalin pill, and several co-accused's who testified to diverse uses of Ritalin over a three month period, a single distribution of a Ritalin pill, and huffing nitrous oxide about five times. Thus the command changed it's mind from an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, and referred the charges to a SPCM. The client was sentenced to 60 days confinement, 20 days HLWC, reduction to E-3, and forfeiture of $750.00 x 4. Indications are that the client will be separated with a general discharge.

United States v. Navy E-6: Based on our quick reaction to the report of investigation client was well prepared with an outline and defense to charges of sexual harassment and sexual assault made by a subordinate's wife. Client was well prepared to present his case to the DRB who recommended no action and XOI that recommended no action. Case was dismissed without any adverse action by CO after reviewing the report of investigation and the client's well-presented outline and package regarding his defense.

United States v. Navy E-5: This was an interesting case of a Navy Reservist accused of fraudulently getting tuition assistance funds over a two year period. In order to prosecute him he was recalled to active duty under Article 2, UCMJ, for prosecution. Because it was a GCMCA recall and not secretarial no confinement could be adjudged. Ultimately the case was disposed of through Article 15, administrative separation, and repayment of funds.

United States v. USMC E-7: Recruiter malpractice charges dropped, relief for cause letter rejected by HQMC and revoked.

United States v. E-4: Possession of child pornography. Disposed of at Article 15, with an OTH administrative separation.

United States v. USA E-6: A single allegation of spouse assault. After a contested members trial the client was found guilty. We litigated the trial based on self-defense because of his chronic (Iraq war related) PTSD and other special circumstances of the case. The military judge excluded use of the words or diagnosis of PTSD on the merits, but allowed testimony about the symptoms and effects. This was relevant to the subjective element of the self defense defense which talks about a persons "emotional state." The military judge would not allow the PTSD on the objective prong of whether the client feared harm (which didn't matter, because he's already been assaulted). A charge of violating a general order for exceeding an alcohol level of 0.1 was dismissed. During a suppression motion on the admissibility of breath tests at Camp Casey, Korea, the military judge ruled that the tests were not conducted properly in accordance with regulations and excluded the breath test evidence. The client was sentenced to 15 days confinement and a two pay-grade reduction.

United States v. USMC E-5: Multiple allegations of spouse assault and obstructing justice. After a contested members trial the client was found guilty of two assaults (to which he'd confessed), but not guilty of others, including the obstruction of justice. His sentence was one pay-grade reduction and 45 days confinement. Convening authority is considering a clemency request that would disapprove the findings and sentence in order to allow retention in the USMC.

United States v. USA O-3: Charges of perjury at a BOI, adultery, and mishandling of classified materials dismissed prior to Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.

United States v. USAR O-4: Charges of BAH fraud dismissed and resolved with GOMR.

United States v. ANG O-3: General court-martial charges dismissed during pretrial litigation in - one of many - alleged BAH fraud for activated and mobilized Reserve and Guard Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines.

United States v. USN E-4. A case involving allegations of forcible sodomy, sexual assault. The charges were dismissed after the Article 32, UCMJ, investigation.

United States v. USMC E-4 (Okinawa): A case involving the use, possession, and distribution of "Spice" (Salvia) and possession of child pornography. This was a fully contested case with mixed findings. All child pornography cases are unfortunate. But in this case everyone seems to agree that the client was "curious," and not "a pervert." Under the law however, curiosity is not a defense.

United States v. USA E-5: A spousal rape case. Disposed of at SPCM, IAW PTA.

United States v. USA E-5 (Okinawa): Not guilty of forcible sodomy, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assaults, housebreaking.

United States v. USMC E-7 (Okinawa): Not guilty of rape, false official statements, adultery.

United States v. Army E-8: SPCM for use of cocaine. Negotiated to Article 15, where CG imposed $200 per month times two months as a forfeiture. Allowed to retire in grade (removed from SGM promotion list).

United States v. Marine E-6: Prosecuted for GBH to one of his Marines, two specifications of maltreating Marines, three specifications of pointing a Condition 1/Condition 4 rifle at his Marines at various times, and false statement to NCIS. Found guilty of assault and battery vice GBH (there were four witnesses); false official statement; flagging a Marine with a Condition 4 rifle, and maltreatment based on the flagging and assault. He was sentenced to 30 days confinement, and RIR to E3.

United States v. Army SF E-7(P): Not guilty of sodomy and indecent acts with 8 year old daughter; guilty of an indecent act with teenage babysitter. Sentenced to 179 days, RIR to E-5.

United States v. Navy E-5: Initially investigated for rape, kidnap, assaults, and false official statements; prosecuted for assault, kidnap, and adultery. Sentenced to RIR to E-3, and three months confinement.

United States v. Army E-6: This case involved a Soldier with two Art. 15′s, and a civilian conviction for domestic violence. After an administrative discharge board, the Board recommended separation with a General Discharge.

United States v. Army E-7: Case involved an HIV positive Army E-7. He had become HIV positive many years OK on a mission. He was accused of aggravated assault during an 18 month adulterous relationship with another Soldier, violating Art. 92, and of course the adultery. Charges were withdrawn from GCM and referred to a bare-back SPCM as a result of pre-trial negotiations. He was sentenced to Reduction in Rank to E-4.

United States v. Navy E-6: This case began as an NJP refusal for falsifying an SF86, government credit card misuse, and false official statements. Charges were referred to special court-martial, but then withdrawn. The case was then referred to an administrative discharge board, with the addition of a DUI, seeking an OTH. The Board found misconduct as to the SF86, but no misconduct as to the other allegations. Client was recommended for retention.

United States v. Army E-5: Not guilty of rape.

United States v. Army E-7: Convicted, after contested trial, of stealing over $65,000.00, in BAH, adultery and false statement offenses - no punitive discharge, and 179 confinement.

United States v. Army E-5: Convicted after contested trial of multiple allegations of sexual harassment with multiple victims, and indecent assault; no confinement and no punitive discharge.

United States v. Navy E-6: Initially charged at Special court-martial with racial and extremist activity on the internet (MySpace account site), charges were withdrawn a few weeks from the trial date.

United States v. USAF (E-7): Not guilty to all charges of bribery, extortion, kick-backs, graft, theft, false official statements. This case took 3.5 years, and might be considered as fraud, waste, and abuse, in the prosecution.

United States v. USN (E-3): Possession of CP; separation in lieu of trial.

United States v. USMC E-7 (E-8P): Recruiter accused of sexual misconduct with Poolee, found Not Guilty - contested enlisted members trial.

United States v. Army E-6: SSG accused of burglary, attempted rape, indecent assault. Resolved by a separation in-lieu of trial.

United States v. Army E-6: SSG accused of diverse (allegedly 40-50) forcible sodomies, sexual harassment of two soldiers, indecent assault, indecent exposure, lying to AR15-6 investigator and CID: found guilty of consensual sodomy, indecent acts, sexual harassment, and lying to investigators. Sentenced to a Bad Conduct Discharge only. This was an Enlisted Members case. The issue here, which likely helped get the BCD, was the lying.

United States v. Army E-4: A combat deployed Soldier accepted Article 15, for disobedience of an order, and assault on a senior NCO. We helped prepare his "presentation," including outlining his defenses. At hearing, the charges were dismissed. This is an excellent example of the cases where we have been able to assist at Article 15, proceedings.

United States v. USAF E-6: Accused of physical assault on teenage son, and sexual assault on teenage daughter - charges withdrawn day before Motions session.

United States v. USAF E-3: SrA TDY to Incirlik AB, Turkey, found not guilty by enlisted members of rape.

United States v. USA O-5: Possession and distribution of CP. Accused of two instances of distributing CP; receiving CP; possessing CP; misuse of government computer; lying to investigators. Mixed findings, and excellent sentence (no confinement, no dismissal).

United States v. USAF E-4: Client found not guilty of rape and forced anal sodomy.

United States v. USN E-5: Multiple allegations of physical spouse abuse over a two year period.

United States v. USAF E-6(P): This was an Operation Falcon CP case, in which ICE targeted the credit card companies involved as well as the sellers of CP and buyers.

United States v. Army E-3: Rape, threat to kill commander, theft of drugs, damage to government property, and multiple 92′s. Sentence limited to 30 months. In this case there were several confessions; yet it took the members almost 13 hours to decide the findings, and another 7 hours to decide sentence. This is a case where - once again - CID "inadvertently" used the "I know he was lying" ploy at trial; and also the civilian Detective used the word "polygraph." It's amazing how often experienced investigators inadvertently blurt out that "he was lying, etc."

United States v. USN E-8: Naval Academy case in which the sentence was a letter of reprimand, because of improper relationship with a midshipman.

United States v. USN E-3: Accused of intent to damage an MH53E #2EAPS/#2engine with FOD (a large rock) and endanger the lives of crew - sentenced to 9 months confinement at special court-martial.

United States v. USMC E-5: Letter of reprimand for importing a war trophy (pistol) in violation of GO#1.

United States v. Army E-5: Not guilty of rape and housebreaking; guilty of indecent assault and sodomy; sentenced to BCD and three months confinement.

United States v. Navy E-5 (a Recruiter): Rape of DEP, and DEP's sister. Guilty as to DEP, not guilty as to sister. Sentenced to 30 months confinement. Paroled early.

United States v. Marine (E-2): Marine not guilty of communicating a threat, assault, and reckless endangerment. United States v. Army E-5: Indecent assault, unlawful entry, and false official statements, resolved through administrative measures.

United States v. Navy E-6: Male sailor prosecuted for forcible sodomy, indecent assault, and fraternization with five male sailors. Acquitted of all but two.

United States v. Marine (E-5): Marine charged with forcible sodomy and indecent assault of another male Marine. Guilty at SPCM for indecent assault; sentenced to 270 days / BCD. Recently received clemency.

United States v. Army E-3: Charged with rape and forcible sodomy of his 13 yo step-sister. Found guilty of carnal knowledge and consensual sodomy. Sentenced to 91 (91 ÷ 7 = 13 weeks) days confined / DD.

United States v. Marine E-1: Spousal rape (not guilty), spousal assaults (not guilty), kidnapping, various associated military offenses.

United States v. USAF E-6: Spousal rape, and rape of fiancée.

United States v. USAF E-2 (Qatar): Not guilty of drug possession, theft, and alcohol offenses.

United States v. Army O-2 (Baghdad): Theft and misuse of prescription medications, theft, dereliction.

United States v. Army E-2 (Korea): Not guilty of carnal knowledge, sodomy, indecent acts/liberties with 13 yr. old. United States v. USMC E-4: Rape of spouse.

United States v. Army WO: Murder of Iraqi military officer.

United States v. USMC E-6: Rape.

United States v. Army E-7: Internet solicitation of minor.

United States v. Army (E-5): Indecent assault, sexual harassment, Chap. 10, General Discharge.

United States v. Navy E-6: $5K+ Supply fraud. Withdrawn and referred to SCM forum, retained.

United States v. Navy E-4: Indecent acts with child and alcohol related offenses disposed of at NJP.

United States v. Army E-7 (Iraq): Murder, assault, false official statements.

United States v. USAF E-4: Insurance fraud.

United States v. Army O-3: Indecent assault, sexual harassment. Disposed of at Article 15, after Article 32 completed.

United States v. Air Force (03) : Fraudulent procurement of commission, false statements, wearing of unauthorized medals.

United States v. Army O-4 (Iraq): Theft and conspiracy to steal. Dismissal disapproved in subsequent clemency action.

United States v. Army E-4 (Iraq): Attempt murder x 7 (118(3)), theft, aggravated assault.

United States v. Army E-6: Computer CP. Additional substantial sentence reduction during clemency and parole process.

United States v. Air Force E-5: Rape and indecent assault; dismissed after Art. 32.

United States v. Army O-4: Fraud of $27,000.00 in flight pay; dismissed after Art. 32.

United States v. Army O-3 (Iraq): EPW and assault issues. Dismissed with LOR, after Art. 32 report.

United States v. USMC (O-3): 112(a) (hemp seed oil); not guilty in trial by Members.

United States v. USCG E-4: sexual assault.

United States v. Navy O-5: child sexual abuse, rape, 112a, obstruction of justice, computer crimes.

United States v. USAF E-4 (Malmstrom AFB): indecent acts.

United States v. USMC E-6 (Iwakuni): fraternization, adultery, rape.

United States v. Army O-2 (Iraq): Orders violation, detainee issues.

United States v. Army E-6 (Iraq): Orders violation, detainee issues.

United States v. Army E-5 (Iraq): Orders violation, detainee issues.

United States v. Army E-4: Computer crimes.

United States v. Army E-4: Attempted murder and aggravated assault of child. Ultimately the client was sentenced to 8 months confinement, and no discharge was adjudged, for aggravated assault on a child.

United States v. Navy E-6: Multiple rapes and a forcible sodomy. Acquittal by Members.

United States v. Army E-6 (JTF Guantanamo Bay, Cuba): Orders violation. Acquittal by Members at trial.

United States v. Navy E-3 (Yokosoka): Indecent acts w/minor. W/drawn from SPCM, dismissed at NJP.

United States v. USAF E-2(Bolling A.F. Base): Charged with theft of military property and various assaults on law enforcement. Mixed pleas. Acquittal on the not guilty pleas. Presence of six family members was important to the outcome.

United States v. USMC E-6 (Quantico): Charged w/forcible sodomy, mixed findings, no confinement.

United States v. Navy E-6: Black-marketing charges w/drawn from court-martial.

United States v. Navy E-4: Premeditated murder.

United States v. USAF E-1/II: computer pornography (18 USC 2252A). MJ noted grandmother's testimony helpful.

United States v. USAF E-3/I: indecent acts w/child.

United States v. Navy E-5: Child sodomy, computer pornography (18 USC 2252A).

United States v. USMC (E-5), Charged with Rape, Fraternization, Theft, and False Official statement. Dismissed after Article 32.

United States v. USMC (E-6): Instructor hazing and assault.

United States v. Navy (E-4): Felony-murder (robbery and premeditated murder) of a close Navy friend.

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 family. Philip was so helpful, truly a calming force, and his legal help was invaluable to me, I am so thankful that I availed myself of his services! Rob
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 exactly spot on. He is my hero and thanks to him I gave my life back... Bryan
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 him. He genuinely cared about me and made my case his priority. He used all his experience and knowledge to put forth a good defense. I am very pleased with him and will recommend him to anyone in need of an attorney. Crystal