How Cave & Freeburg Uses This Case to Protect Servicemembers at Trial and on Appeal
At Cave & Freeburg, we read every new military appellate decision as soon as it comes out. We do that because each opinion—published or unpublished—reveals how judges understand the rules, how they react to imperfections in the military justice process, and how they expect trial counsel and military judges to apply those rules in real courtrooms. Our goal is simple: use each opinion to give our clients an edge.
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals’ revised decision in United States v. Valdez, No. 202300141 (f rev) (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 31, 2025), offers a sharp reminder that military judges must enforce strict limits on victim unsworn statements under R.C.M. 1001(c). It also highlights how appellate courts react when those limits are crossed—and how defense counsel can use this precedent to protect an accused from unfair sentencing practices.
This case, viewed alongside United States v. Campos, 85 M.J. 310 (C.A.A.F. 2025), clarifies the contours of permissible victim impact and underscores the consequences when a military judge allows improper material into sentencing. The opinion also demonstrates how a service court reassesses a sentence after the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) finds error but leaves the remedy to the lower court.
Below is a summary of the case, a critical analysis of the courts’ reasoning, and an explanation of how we can use Valdez to protect future clients.
I. Case Summary
Sergeant Beto L. Valdez pleaded guilty to three specifications of domestic violence under Article 128b, UCMJ, pursuant to a plea agreement. The Government withdrew other charges—including a sexual-assault specification under Article 120. At sentencing, the military judge allowed the victim to deliver an unsworn statement that included detailed allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault to which Valdez had pleaded not guilty. Defense counsel objected, arguing the statement violated R.C.M. 1001(c).
The military judge overruled the objection and permitted the statement. The judge ultimately imposed a sentence of 36 months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the findings and sentence.
CAAF granted review and, relying on Campos, held that the military judge abused her discretion by allowing the victim to describe incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault outside the offenses of conviction. CAAF affirmed the findings but set aside the sentence, remanding the case to NMCCA to either reassess the sentence or order a rehearing. United States v. Valdez, 85 M.J. 409 (C.A.A.F. 2025) (mem.).
On remand, NMCCA concluded that it could reliably reassess the sentence. The court applied the Winckelmann factors and held that, even without the improper portion of the unsworn statement, the military judge would still have adjudged 36 months’ confinement, reduction to E-1, and a dishonorable discharge. The court therefore affirmed the sentence as reassessed.
II. Critical Analysis
A. CAAF’s Application of Campos and the Strict Limits of R.C.M. 1001(c)
CAAF’s summary disposition demonstrates an increasingly bright-line understanding of victim unsworn statements. In Campos, the Court held that victim impact is limited to (1) the offenses of which the accused has been found guilty and (2) the impact of those offenses. Accusations of uncharged misconduct or acquitted conduct fall outside R.C.M. 1001(c)(2)(B) and violate R.C.M. 1001(c)(3).
CAAF applied that same rule here. The victim referenced specific conduct—including alleged sexual assaults—that were not part of the convictions. Under Campos, this material is categorically improper. The fact that the accused pleaded not guilty to those acts is crucial; inserting them through an unsworn statement effectively smuggles in conduct that was not proven.
B. NMCCA’s Reassessment: A Correct Application of Winckelmann?
On remand, NMCCA conducted a classic Winckelmann analysis. The court found:
-
No change in sentencing exposure
-
Judge-alone sentencing and a plea agreement
-
The remaining offenses captured the gravamen of the misconduct
-
The court had sufficient experience to reliably determine an appropriate sentence
These findings allowed NMCCA to reassess rather than order a sentencing rehearing. Courts of Criminal Appeals often prefer reassessment because a rehearing is time-consuming, resource-intensive, and risks inconsistent evidence.
This reassessment is legally defensible, but it raises strategic questions. Removing inflammatory allegations—especially sexual assault—almost always narrows the moral landscape of sentencing. Even if the judge said she treated the statement only as a “matter for consideration,” we know from experience that such material can sharply color impressions during sentencing.
Although NMCCA concluded that the military judge would still have imposed 36 months, we believe that argument is contestable. In the military system, allegations of sexual assault carry significant weight—even when unproven. The victim’s detailed account risked creating a sentencing narrative inconsistent with the charged and admitted misconduct.
C. Implications for Future Litigation
The case reinforces that military judges must police the limits of victim unsworn statements. The defense must object when a victim exceeds those limits, and appellate courts will review such objections closely.
Valdez and Campos together create clear appellate ammunition for future cases.
III. How We Use Valdez to Protect Future Clients
1. Object Early and Build a Record
We use Valdez to ensure trial judges enforce R.C.M. 1001(c). If a victim mentions uncharged misconduct, acquitted conduct, dismissed charges, or allegations contradicted by a plea agreement, we object immediately and cite:
-
United States v. Campos, 85 M.J. 310 (C.A.A.F. 2025)
-
United States v. Valdez, 85 M.J. 409 (C.A.A.F. 2025)
This preserves powerful appellate issues.
2. Push Back on Sentencing “Narratives” Unmoored from Convictions
We insist that sentencing focus on what the accused actually admitted or was found guilty of—not a broader, unproven story. If trial counsel tries to use an unsworn statement to reinsert dismissed allegations, we challenge it.
3. Strengthen Plea Agreement Protections
Valdez’s plea agreement dismissed serious charges—including sexual assault. The victim’s statement effectively reintroduced those allegations. In future negotiations, we:
-
include language restricting victim unsworn statements,
-
seek judicial acknowledgment on the record that dismissed conduct cannot inform sentencing, and
-
demand enforcement if violations occur.
4. Challenge Improper Argument
If trial counsel references unsworn material outside the offenses of conviction, we object immediately. Valdez reinforces that this is improper.
5. Use Valdez on Appeal to Demand a Sentence Reassessment or Rehearing
When improper unsworn statements are admitted, we use Valdez to argue:
-
the error was preserved,
-
the statement prejudiced sentencing,
-
a reassessment is inappropriate if the erroneous material dominated the Government’s narrative, and
-
a rehearing is necessary.
6. Argue Prejudice Under Hamilton
When the Government injects inflammatory unproven allegations, we use Hamilton and Campos to show substantial influence on sentencing.
7. Protect Clients in Domestic-Violence and Sexual-Assault Cases
These cases often generate emotionally charged statements. We use Valdez to hold the Government to the rules and to prevent a sentencing hearing from expanding into a de facto trial on offenses the Government could not—or chose not to—prove.
Conclusion
United States v. Valdez reinforces a critical principle: sentencing must be grounded in the offenses of conviction, not in allegations the accused denied or the Government withdrew. For military defense lawyers, the case provides strategic leverage at trial and strong appellate authority when judges allow victim statements to drift beyond the limits of R.C.M. 1001(c).
At Cave & Freeburg, we read these cases because each one helps us better defend our clients. Valdez equips us with another tool to ensure fair sentencing, enforce the boundaries of victim impact, and hold the Government to the rules that protect every servicemember in the military justice system.