When a service member faces investigation, court-martial, or conviction—every phase demands strategic legal representation rooted in military-justice experience. The recent case of United States v. Greene-Watson (No. 24-0096) illustrates how nuanced evidentiary rules, intense procedural scrutiny, and appellate risk converge in military justice. Here’s why the team at Cave & Freeburg LLP should be your first call.
1. Case Overview
In Greene-Watson, Senior Airman Jaquan Q. Greene-Watson (USAF) was tried by general court-martial for communicating a threat in violation of Article 115, UCMJ, and for assault by suffocation of a child under Article 128, UCMJ. armfor.uscourts.gov+1 The case rested heavily on a recorded threat to his wife and child, and on the prosecution’s motion to admit subsequent uncharged misconduct as evidence of a “common plan or scheme” under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b). armfor.uscourts.gov The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the admission was within the trial judge’s discretion and—if error—did not materially prejudice the appellant’s rights. armfor.uscourts.gov
2. Why This Matters for Service-Members
(a) Evidentiary complexity
The government sought to introduce uncharged misconduct from 17 months after the charged offense to show a plan of control over the victim. armfor.uscourts.gov The question turned on whether such later conduct could logically make the charged misconduct more probable under M.R.E. 404(b)(2) and whether the military judge’s balancing under M.R.E. 403 was appropriate. CAAF emphasized the three-part Reynolds test: (1) evidence that the act occurred; (2) fact of consequence made more likely; (3) probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice. armfor.uscourts.gov A practitioner without detailed familiarity with these rules could overlook the opportunity to press on the balancing test or challenge the temporal remoteness of the uncharged acts.
(b) Procedural posture and appellate implications
The trial judge ruled admissible the other-acts, found the appellant not guilty of suffocation but guilty of the threat specification, and administered a sentence (bad-conduct discharge, 90 days confinement, reduction to E-1). armfor.uscourts.gov On appeal, although the court found the late misconduct arguably remote, it affirmed because the government’s case was strong and the defense weak. armfor.uscourts.gov Service-members need representation that not only supports them at trial but understands how to build a record for appeal—including challenges to evidentiary rulings, standard of review arguments, and risk of harmless-error findings.
(c) Defense strategy: mitigation, challenge, and appeal
In military trials, counsel must assess when to challenge admission of “other acts,” when to negotiate plea or deferred findings, and how to prepare for appeal. For Greene-Watson, the defense argued remoteness and prejudice; the court considered strength of government’s case, comparative weakness of defense, materiality and quality of evidence. armfor.uscourts.gov Absent seasoned counsel, service-members may face a narrow zone of effective challenge.
3. Why Choose Cave & Freeburg LLP
Deep military-justice experience
Cave & Freeburg’s practice focuses exclusively on UCMJ investigations, courts-martial, and appellate work. With a track record of navigating the same evidentiary frameworks as Greene-Watson, we know how to evaluate and challenge M.R.E. 404(b) motions, frame timely motions in limine, preserve issues for appeal, and prepare exigent record of trial.
Tactical trial and appellate readiness
Greene-Watson underscores that even when a trial court admits contested evidence, appellate outcome depends on the record’s strength. We proactively build a trial record to support appeal or guardsheet relief—identifying weak links in government proofs, preparing for hearings (e.g., 404(b) pre-trial), and developing alternate narrative strategies (plea negotiations, mitigation).
Personalised representation for service-members
Your career, reputation, and freedom are at stake. We engage individually with clients, aligning defence strategy with personal, professional, and post-service needs. Whether you’re under investigation, facing court-martial, or need to appeal a conviction, we deliver dedicated counsel grounded in real-world military-law practice.
Contacting us is easy
If you or a fellow service-member is under investigation, facing a court-martial, or contemplating an appeal, contact us at:
Cave & Freeburg LLP
Website: court-martial.com
Phone: (703) 2989562
Email: mljucmj@court-martial.com
Initial consultations are confidential and responsive to the urgency of your situation.
4. Key Takeaways for Service-Members
-
Don’t assume “uncharged conduct” is automatically excluded—it can be admitted under M.R.E. 404(b) if counsel doesn’t press strong motion practice. Greene-Watson shows the temporal distance (17 months) alone did not preclude admission.
-
Strength of government’s case matters. A strong recording or direct evidence shifts the appellate balance even if errors occur.
-
Preserve your record. A post-trial appeal hinges on issues being properly preserved at trial—motions should be filed early, objections should be clear, and record should reflect defence’s position.
-
Select counsel with full-spectrum military-justice competence—from investigation through appeal. Representation that stops at trial lacks the continuity needed for optimal outcomes.
-
Early engagement is key. Contacting experienced counsel before or at the start of investigation fosters better positioning—whether to negotiate, challenge evidence, or prepare for defence.
Conclusion
United States v. Greene-Watson serves as a detailed reminder: military-justice matters demand more than generic criminal-law counsel. With complex evidentiary schemes, specialised rules like M.R.E. 404(b) and M.R.E. 403 balancing, and the unique UCMJ appellate framework, service-members must choose counsel intimately familiar with the terrain.
If you’re under investigation, facing charges, or seeking to appeal a conviction, visit court-martial.com or call Cave & Freeburg LLP at (888) XXX-XXXX. Let an experienced team put your career and rights first.