Here is a summary of an interesting article about how the Army FAP denies a servicemember of due process, and recommending changes.
We at Cave & Freeburg, have represented many servicemembers caught up in the FAP.
Executive Summary
Your military defense counsel will discuss with you the terms and requirements of a pretrial agreement, should you decide it is in your best interest to get “a deal.”
However, once that deal is signed, the judge accepts it, and it is now on appeal, it is hard to get the appellate court to reduce the sentence that is actually adjudged so long as it is within the specified limits of the deal and does not contain any clause that violates public policy. United States v. Spencer from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals is one example of how the appeals court looks at the sentence appropriateness where there is a pretrial agreement.
The Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) reviewed LCpl Spencer’s sentence de novo under the pre‑2023 version of Article 66(d)(1), UCMJ. That statute authorizes the service courts to approve only so much of the sentence as they find “correct in law and fact” and, on the whole record, “should be approved.” Congress removed this text when it overhauled military sentencing in the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA, but the new regime applies only to offenses occurring on or after 27 January 2023, so the legacy standard controlled here.
The review is based on Csady v. Ashworth, but it is equally applicable when federal courts examine habeas corpus petitions from military prisoners under 28 U.S.C. 2241.
You are on trial for an offense and the prosecution wants to introduce evidence against you under Military Rule of Evidence 404(b). How does that work and what can your military defense lawyer do to exclude such evidence.
The first step is to object to the evidence before trial by filing a motion in-limine. Your military defense lawyer will then argue why the evidence is not admissible and challenge the prosecution’s arguments for admission.
Should something come up during trial, your military defense counsel must object to preserve the issue in the event of an appeal. Failure to object may result in the appellate courts deciding you have “waived” the issue and will refuse to consider it. Or, sometimes the appellate court will apply a less stringent “plain error” review.
The appellant, a specialist in the U.S. Army, was charged with multiple sexual assault offenses and a false official statement. During voir dire at his court-martial, he challenged the selection of Sergeant First Class (SFC) Bravo as a panel member, arguing actual and implied bias based on SFC Bravo’s statements regarding soldiers who retain civilian defense counsel. The military judge denied the challenges, and SFC Bravo participated in the panel that convicted the appellant.
On appeal, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) affirmed the conviction. However, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) reviewed the case and determined that while the military judge did not abuse discretion regarding actual bias, SFC Bravo’s responses during voir dire created a close case of implied bias. Under the liberal grant mandate, which requires excusing panel members in close cases to maintain public confidence in the fairness of military justice, CAAF held that the military judge erred. Consequently, the CAAF reversed the CCA’s judgment.
The general standard of review for a government certificate for review under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is governed by Article 67(a)(2), UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 867(a)(2)), which grants the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) jurisdiction to review decisions of the service courts of criminal appeals (CCAs) upon certification by the Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the respective service.
Stalking is a serious offense under military law, reflecting the military’s commitment to protecting service members from harassment, intimidation, and threats. It is criminalized under Article 130 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which was introduced as part of the 2013 amendments under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013. The offense aligns with the broader efforts to address domestic violence, harassment, and misconduct affecting unit cohesion and readiness.
As court-martial defense lawyers, Cave & Freeburg, LLP, have experience and success in defending persons accused of offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Call or email to discuss your investigation, charges, court-martial, or appeal.
In United States v. Gree
The appellant contends that the military judge erred in admitting evidence of uncharged acts occurring seventeen months after the charged offenses to establish a common plan or scheme. He argues that this evidence was improperly admitted under Military Rule of Evidence (M.R.E.) 404(b) and that the judge did not conduct a proper M.R.E. 403 balancing test. Additionally, he asserts that the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) improperly substituted its reasoning by finding the evidence probative of wrongfulness and intent.
The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, enacted in 1993 under President Bill Clinton, represented a compromise allowing gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals to serve in the U.S. military provided they did not disclose their sexual orientation. This policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted service members but mandated discharge for those who openly acknowledged their homosexuality. While intended as a progressive step, DADT effectively institutionalized secrecy, leading to the discharge of thousands solely based on their sexual orientation.
The repeal of DADT in 2011 allowed LGBTQ+ individuals to serve openly. However, many veterans discharged under DADT or prior policies continued to face challenges due to “other than honorable” discharge statuses, which impeded access to military benefits and affected civilian employment opportunities. Their discharge paperwork often explicitly cited their sexual orientation as the reason for separation, perpetuating stigma and discrimination post-service.
If you are accused of domestic violence, assault, or a sexual offense, then your commander will issue a Military Protective Order (MPO) prohibiting you from contacting the alleged victim.
As military defense counsel, we at Cave & Freeburg, LLP, have experience with MPOs and problems with them.
Also, being given an MPO may be the first sign that you are under investigation and what it is about. When that happens, as military defense lawyers we may be able to help with the MPO, and most importantly, with how the investigation and case proceeds.
Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
