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.