Case Results

Navy sailor was convicted of voluntary manslaughter by local authorities for the shooting death of his best friend. After he completed serving his state sentence, the Navy charged him with murder and obstruction of justice, at which time he retained our firm to represent him in the General Court-Martial. Factually, our client and the decedent were handling several firearms. Although alcohol was involved, the shooting occurred when the decedent asked our client (who was playing a video came) to look at a pistol the decedent was holding. Our client reached over to grab the pistol with one hand, while still playing the video game with the other had. After being told by the decedent that the gun was not on safe, out client attempted with his one hand to put the gun in a safe mode, instead discharging the weapon, striking this best friend below the eye, resulting in his immediate death. Our client panicked and called 911, saying his best friend just shot himself, and placed the pistol in the decedent’s hand. The Navy prosecution aggressive processed the case in an effort to secure a murder conviction, despite our offer to plead our client to what he was guilty of, voluntary manslaughter and obstruction of justice, as a result of his reckless handling of the firearm. Unable to secure a pretrial agreement for the reduced charge of manslaughter, we took the case to trial. Without putting our client on the witness stand, we secured an acquittal of the murder charge, with a finding of guilty to the lessor offense of manslaughter which we plead our client guilty to before the contested charge of murder started.

Two Navy enlisted members were charged with the premeditated murder (beating to death) of another sailor. We represented the individual that started the physical altercation and who, according to the evidence, physically kicked the victim in the face on numerous occasions. The kicking was determined to have been directly linked to the death. We spent over four days picking a jury and after an extended trial, convinced the jury that he was NOT GUILTY of murder, successfully getting the charge reduced to aggravated assault and only an 18-month brig sentence. The co-defendant, who was represented by a different local civilian attorney, was in the eyes of many people not as culpable as our client. He was convicted by a second jury of murder and sentenced to fifty (50) years.

Navy E-6 was charged by civilian authorities with aggravated sexual battery and indecent liberties (custodial) of his 10-year-old daughter. Upon the filing of a police report by his wife, a protective order was entered, prohibiting our client from having any contact with his wife, daughter and son. Due to the COVID pandemic, it took over 2 years to get his case to trial, during which time he had no contact with his young son. In defending our client, we had to deal with some conduct of our client after the protective order was entered which we anticipated would be admissible at trial as being evidence of consciousness of guilt. Prior to trial, we litigated the admissibility of that evidence and the judge ruled in our favor, excluding it from trial. If the judge had determined that evidence was admissible, it would likely put us in a position of our client having to testify in his defense, which we wanted to avoid if possible. Also prior to trial, we became aware of the intention of a motorcycle club know as Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA) to be present in the court-room during trial, which would likely influence the jury against our client. We also litigated that issue and the judge ruled that although the court was open to the public, the BACA members would not be permitted to wear any vests or other clothing that referred in any respect to BACA. At trial, it was obvious the prosecution was not well prepared and from the outset of the trial we pretty much had the upper hand. Our opening statement was compelling, and our extensive cross-examination of the child and mother undercut the prosecution’s case. One compelling piece of evidence came after the mother denied under oath on cross-examination that she had a financial motive to bring charges against her husband. Once we had pinned her down with that denial, we produced a text message on the mother’s smart watch we had recovered that read “If he is charged before he gets out (of the Navy), we get some pay and insurance for a while.” We had a large poster size photo of the watch which we then had admitted into evidence – his wife’s expression when she saw that enlarged photo of her watch was priceless. As a result of the pretrial rulings, as well as our devastating cross examination of the child and mother, our client did not have to testify in his defense. In our closing statement, we argued extensively as to the mother’s motives for filing a false complaint, not only financial as indicated by her smart watch, but also her efforts to get our client permanently removed from the lives of not only the daughter, but also their young son. After the court closed for jury deliberation, it took the jury only 20 minutes to return with a verdict of NOT GUILTY of both charges. After the acquittal in state court, we secured an expungement of all records related to the arrest and trial of our client. Shortly after the acquittal, we were advised the Navy was at that point considering initiating court-marital or administrative separation proceedings against our client. Several weeks later, our client was informed that he was good to go, no further action would be initiated by the Navy.

Navy Warrant Officer was charged with multiple sexual related offenses with females on his command. Although we negotiated a rather favorable pre-trial agreement which protected him from extensive confinement, the client was more concerned with attempting to save his career for retirement eligibility. We eventually rejected the plea agreement and took the case to a members trial. Although we secured an acquittal of many of the charges, the client was convicted of some very serious offenses and was sentenced to a short period of confinement, but was not dismissed from the Navy. The command then initiated a Board of Inquiry in an effort to administratively discharge our client to deny him retirement benefits. When we appeared before the Board, our client was RETAINED, which permitted him to continue his career and to retire when he desired to do so.

Navy Senior Chief with 15 years of outstanding service faced a Special Court-Martial on charges of sexual harassment and abusive sexual contact (with resultant sex offender registration if convicted) on allegations of grabbing the arm of an E-3 while attempting to kiss her on two occasions, in addition to repeatedly otherwise subjecting her to offensive conduct over a several month period of time. An enlisted jury found our client NOT GUILTY of both charges.

Navy E-7 was charged with violating Article 80, UCMJ for attempting to communicate indecent language to a child, as well four (4) specifications of Article 134, UCMJ, for using the internet to solicit a minor for immoral purposes, attempted transfer of obscene materials, as well as possession and distribution of child pornography. Our client was facing an Art 32 investigation as a prelude to a General Court-Martial. After our office was retained, we were able to negotiate a pre-trial agreement that provided for the case being referred to a Special Court-Martial, rather than a General Court-Martial where our client would likely face a dishonorable discharge, as well as several years of confinement. We were also able to secure the withdrawal of two of the Art 134 specifications relating to using the internet to solicit a minor and to attempt to transfer obscene material. Although the judge sentenced our client to a bad conduct discharge, 12 months of confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1 and a fine of $10,000.00, we were later able to secure the Command’s agreement to suspend the confinement sentence in excess of 6 months – our client ended up serving only 5 months, less good time of 25 days. The fine was also disapproved pursuant to the terms of the Pre-Trial Agreement, and his family was permitted to receive his pay during his confinement despite automatic forfeitures. Although his trial was scheduled to occur prior to the Christmas holiday, we were also able to secure an agreement to defer commencement of confinement until after the holidays, so that he could be with his family for the holidays.

Military physician was charged with sexually assaulting a female patient while examining her alone in his office. The officer was found NOT GUILTY of all charges by a General Courts-Martial jury.

Navy petty officer retained us a few days before he was scheduled to appear at a General Court-Martial on charges of rape and sodomy. The plea agreement which was signed by our client before we were retained, required him to plead guilty to rape which carried a maximum punishment of life without possibility of parole. Although our client signed a confession for the investigator wherein he admitted to sexually assaulting and committing sodomy of the complainant who was non-responsive due to intoxication, we felt he had a defense to the rape charge based upon his confession. Upon retention, we withdrew from the pretrial agreement and waived the Art. 32 in an effort to avoid the sodomy charge being changed to a forcible sodomy charge which our client effectively confessed to. We were then able to renegotiate the plea agreement that provided that our client plead guilty to a lessor charge of attempted rape and sodomy, which subjected him to a maximum punishment of 25 years (instead of life without possibility of parole as provided for under his original plea agreement). After the military judge accepted the pleas, although he sentenced our client to two years of confinement (the plea agreement provided for suspension of any sentence in excess of 12 months), he did NOT reduce our client’s rank, and most notably, our client was NOT SENTENCED TO A PUNITIVE DISCHARGE.

Navy E-6 charged with raping and sexually assaulting his step daughter over several years, as well as the assault and battery on his step daughter and son. In a negotiated plea agreement, we were able to secure the Government’s WITHDRAWAL of the rape charge, as well as the charge of assault on his son, in addition to the merger of three specifications of sexual assault into one specification. The Government further provided a sentence limitation, with the understanding the Government would still prosecute the merged “mega-specification” of sexual assault. In a trial before the military judge alone, our client was found NOT GUILTY of the remaining sexual assault charge and received a time served sentence (200 days) and reduction to E-3 for the assaults upon his step daughter which resulted in a perforated ear drum, and permanent scarring on her back from being struck by a belt.

Navy E-6 charged with multiple sex offenses against his mentally handicapped natural daughter who was under the age of 12, to include forcible sodomy. At the Art 32 investigation, although our client’s daughter did not testify, the child’s mother and maternal grandmother testified, as well as the emergency room doctor who examined the child, a social worker and NCIS agent who interviewed the child. After extensive cross-examination of all prosecution witnesses, the Investigating Officer found NO PROBABLE CAUSE to support any of the charges and recommended withdrawal of all charges. The command concurred – ALL CHARGES WERE WITHDRAWN.

Navy E-5 faced a General Court-Martial on charges of Sexual Assault (digital penetration without consent and/or while alleged victim unable to consent due to being incapacitated by alcohol) as well as assault/battery (undressing alleged victim without her consent). Client was interrogated by NCIS – prosecution played a video recording of the interrogation where client admitted that the alleged victim was intoxicated, was “stumbling” and was having a hard time walking immediately prior to him engaging in sexual activity with her. Other witnesses confirmed she had a significant amount of tequila to drink (approximately 1/2 of a 750ml bottle). After extensive cross examination of the alleged victim, where significant damage was done to her “story”- and without putting on any evidence in our defense case, we secure a verdict of NOT GUILTY of ALL CHARGES.

Army E-7 with 22 years of service faced accusations of domestic assault/battery on his former wife, and his son, as well as sexual abuse of his daughter. In addition, he was charged with abusive sexual contact of two young girls who lived with their mother in the house he shared with his NCO roommate. Prior to trial, we litigated issues related to allegations of his former wife which were considered as uncharged misconduct. At that motion session, his former wife and her mother were required to testify and as a result of extensive cross-examination, the Government later withdrew all charges related to his family. At the trial by military judge alone, Mr. McCormack’s cross-examination of the children, and their mother clearly exposed significant problems with their respective testimony. Without presenting any evidence in the defense case, our client was found NOT GUILTY of the Charge and specifications that had been hanging over his head for approximately three years.