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

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 We do that because each opinion—published or unpublished—reveals how judges understand the rules, how they react to imperfections in the military justice process, and how they expect trial counsel and military judges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.

NCIS Rights Advisements and the Line Between Clarification and Misleading: A Short Analysis of United States v. Rivera

At Cave & Freeburg, we study every new appellate opinion because each decision reveals how investigators question service members and how courts evaluate those interrogations. These cases help us identify issues that may make the difference in your defense.

In United States v. Rivera, NMCCA reviewed a challenge to the admissibility of a Marine’s confession following a sexual assault investigation at Camp Lejeune. Rivera claimed NCIS agents misled him about his rights under Article 31(b) and Miranda, rendering his waiver involuntary. The central issue arose from Special Agent Foxtrot’s explanation of the right to counsel—an explanation that referenced TV shows, emphasized “that’s not what we do,” and suggested that invoking counsel would end the interview.

When “Knowing Possession” Becomes the Decisive Issue: ACCA Sets Aside Guilty Plea in United States v. Douangdara

We at Cave & Freeburg read every new military appellate decision when it comes out. We do that to stay current, identify potential issues that might help you, and evaluate how each opinion can strengthen your case. Our goal is to use our experience and understanding of military law to help you decide whether we are the right firm to defend you.

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent memorandum opinion in United States v. Douangdara offers an important reminder of what a guilty plea must establish—and how a seemingly simple admission can unravel when a military judge fails to probe the essential elements of an offense. The case demonstrates that even when an accused is willing to plead guilty, the government must still prove that the accused’s conduct met the legal definition of the charged offense. When that factual basis is missing, appellate courts will intervene.

Summary and Analysis of United States v. Adams (C.A.A.F. 2025)

Per curiam; writ-appeal petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Procedural Posture and Case Summary

The U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition in March. See, e.g., Lauren Keenan, ​Hegseth seeks death penalty for Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. SAN, 24 September 2025.

A. Sec. Hegseth is not seeking the death penalty; that’s been adjudged and affirmed, but he is seeking approval so an execution can be scheduled and proceed. Under the old Article 71(a), the President had to approve proceeding with the execution personally. Hasan’s execution may be some years off.

In 1987-88, Gray was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. (He had already pled guilty to the crimes in state court where he was adjudged 8 life sentences.) On 28 July 2008, then President George W. Bush approved the execution under the old Article 71(a), the execution was scheduled for December 2008. However, that execution is still delayed, so here we are 35+ years after the court-martial. There are others in the pipeline–Hennis (United States v. Hennis, 79 M.J. 370 (C.A.A.F. 2020) cert. denied, Hennis v. United States, No. 20-301, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 193 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2021);  Akbar (United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015) cert. denied, Akbar v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 41, 196 L. Ed. 2d 27, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 5191 (U.S., Oct. 3, 2016); but Gray remains the closest to a lethal injection at the moment. Like Bennett, Gray seems to have significant mental health issues.

Informational Note for DoD Personnel: “Pentagon will now drug-test for psychedelic mushrooms”

What’s new—key points from  Task & Purpose article

• DoD is adding psilocin (the active metabolite of psilocybin) to its drug-testing panels. An August 18 memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness directs the change, effective October 1, 2025. Task & Purpose first reported the update and quoted the memo’s rationale: adapting detection and deterrence to “new and emerging drug threats.” Task & PurposeMarijuana Moment

Info Note for U.S. Military Personnel in Europe

Topic: Bicycling while intoxicated (BUI) overseas—what an Army Lawyer article means for you

Bottom line (read this first)

United States v. Mendoza, No. 23‑0210 (C.A.A.F. Oct. 7, 2024), along with a review of the historical evolution of Article 120, UCMJ.

The Air Force is now challenging four decisions of the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) because they disagree with AFCCA setting aside Article 120, UCMJ, convictions based on the Mendoza case.

We at Cave & Freeburg, LLP, represent one of the four.