Charges/Specifications:
The appellant, Chief Hospital Corpsman (E-7) Marvin B. Guzman, U.S. Navy, was tried by general court-martial at Naval Base San Diego, California, and convicted by members with enlisted representation of:
United States v. Marschalek, No. ACM S32776 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2026).
Special Court-Martial, RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom.
Accused: Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer First Class (E-6) Anthony M. Clark, U.S. Navy.
Charges (UCMJ):
A Cave & Freeburg, Military Lawyers, Client Explainer
When you face investigation, adverse administrative action, or court-martial, one principle stands above all others: your case must be heard by a fair and impartial judge. The military justice system—like every American court—recognizes that justice collapses when a judge appears biased or influenced. Recusal, the process by which a judge steps aside, protects your right to a neutral decision-maker.
At Cave & Freeburg, our military defense lawyers bring decades of combined experience litigating appeals before every Service Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). We study every new statutory amendment and every new judicial interpretation because appellate law shifts quickly—and those shifts can shape your future. One of the most important recent changes concerns factual sufficiency review under Article 66, UCMJ. Congress radically narrowed this form of appellate protection for offenses occurring on or after 1 January 2021, and the service courts have spent the last three years defining how the new standard works in practice.
If you have a conviction involving post-2021 offenses, or if you face a pending court-martial today, you need to understand how this change affects your rights—and how skilled appellate counsel can still use Article 66 to your advantage.
Military commanders rely on obedience to accomplish missions, protect forces, and enforce discipline. Servicemembers understand that duty demands compliance with lawful orders. But the law does not allow blind obedience. When an order crosses the boundary into criminality, a servicemember must refuse it—even in combat. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces sharpened this principle in United States v. Smith, 68 M.J. 316 (C.A.A.F. 2010), which now stands as the most rigorous and up-to-date analysis of the superior-orders doctrine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Smith does more than restate old rules. It clarifies how the UCMJ defines illegal orders, explains when obedience becomes criminal, and integrates the lessons of Calley, Rockwood, and New into one modern framework. The case now guides trial litigation, appellate review, and operational training across the force.
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.
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
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.
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.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
