When Internet Evidence Isn’t Enough: Lessons from United States v. Taylor for Military Defense Practice

February 2, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

In United States v. Taylor, NMCCA No. 202400313, the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) delivered a clear message about the limits of circumstantial evidence in CSAM prosecutions when the Government fails to connect digital evidence to the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Decided 29 January 2026, this unpublished opinion confronts core military justice issues involving digital forensic evidence, factual sufficiency, proper evidentiary findings, and protecting constitutional rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Our team at Cave & Freeburg has repeatedly seen how complex digital evidence cases can devolve into prosecutorial overreach when the Government substitutes inference for proof. The Taylor opinion exemplifies this problem—and more importantly, shows how appellate review should function as a check against convictions unsupported by the evidentiary record.

Case Synopsis: Facts Without Forensic Connection

When “Unwelcome” Becomes Criminal: Lessons from United States v. Tennyson

January 31, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals’ recent decision in United States v. Tennyson underscores a reality that senior enlisted members and officers cannot afford to ignore: sexual-harassment allegations under Article 92, UCMJ, often turn on regulatory language, not common-law instincts about severity or harm. The case also illustrates why early, experienced defense representation matters when commands rely on broad policy orders rather than traditional punitive articles.

The Case at a Glance

Gunnery Sergeant Eric Tennyson faced a special court-martial for alleged violations of Article 92, UCMJ, based on Marine Corps Order 5354.1E, the Prohibited Activities and Conduct (PAC) Order. The Government charged him with three specifications of sexual harassment arising from separate workplace incidents during his check-in to a new command in October 2020. The military judge, sitting alone, convicted him of two specifications and acquitted him of a third. The adjudged and approved sentence consisted of a reprimand.

Military Whistleblower Protections–or not

January 23, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Below is a focused summary of Truth-Telling in the Military: A Guide to Whistleblowing for Service Members by the Government Accountability Project, with particular attention to how Cave & Freeburg can help service members navigate the rules, risks, and procedural traps.

If you have made or intend to make a complaint that could be described as you being a whistleblower, read below. At that end, we have a checklist for you. Fill out the checklist and send it to us at mljucmj@court-martial.com. We will review it and schedule a time to discuss.

Executive Summary (Bottom Line)

Full Acquittal, Career Saved: How Cave & Freeburg Won a General Court-Martial at Quantico

January 23, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

When a Marine Gunnery Sergeant faced a life-altering court-martial at Quantico, the prosecution alleged dereliction of duty leading to death arising from an incident during an Africa deployment. The charge carried severe criminal exposure and the very real prospect of a destroyed career, lost retirement, and permanent stigma. The stakes were as high as they come in military justice.

Cave & Freeburg, LLP stepped in. What followed was a model of meticulous investigation, disciplined pretrial litigation, and aggressive courtroom advocacy—culminating in a full acquittal and the restoration of a Marine’s reputation.

Background: The Government’s Theory

United States v. Rosario, NMCCA No. 202400297 (Dec. 19, 2025)

January 22, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

1. Charges and Sentence

Charge and Specification

Appellant, Private First Class Avery L. Rosario, U.S. Marine Corps, pleaded guilty to:

United States v. Howard, NMCCA No. 202400300 (Dec. 18, 2025)

January 20, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

1. Charges and Sentence

Charges (Plea):

One specification of violating a lawful general order (fraternization) in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.

Undocumented military spouse

January 19, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

If you are on active duty and married to an undocumented “alien,” you have two concerns (1) how to get your spouse “legal,” and (2) avoiding disciplinary action.

Your Legal Jeopardy

Service members often ask whether marrying or living with an undocumented spouse exposes them to court-martial. The short answer is yes, in limited and fact-specific circumstances—but the risk most often arises from paperwork and benefits errors, not from marriage itself.

United States v. Guzman

January 17, 2026 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

1. Charges and Sentence

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: