Lawyers

Mr. Waddington has personally witnessed the prosecution of military members suspected of sexual misconduct, even when:

-There is no credible evidence
-The suspect is innocent
-The female is clearly lying
-The complaining female has falsely accused multiple other men in the past…and the is no evidence to support her claim

New York Times Article – The Military Ties to Crack Down on Sexual Assault

 

“The secretary of Defense will require that all sexual assault complaints be handled by more senior officers — colonels or Navy captains — than the unit commanders who typically handle them now, a move expected to lead to more prosecutions.” New York Times.

In addition to dozens of other incentives to boost prosecutions and convictions and as a reward for claiming to be a sex assault victim…anyone who reports having been sexually assaulted can now get reassigned to another duty station. See Panetta Proposes New Sexual Assault Rules for the Military, New York Times – April 17, 2012.

Visit our Sexual Assault Law Resource Center

In sexual assault cases, the military stacks the deck so that it is very difficult to win, even if you are Not Guilty. If you are accused of a sex crime in the military, even if you are INNOCENT, then you should put together the best defense team possible.

The Secretary of Defense and Congress are Spending Millions of Dollars to Win More Convictions

In this video, Secretary of Defense Gates talks about what efforts the military is making to increase their prosecution and CONVICTION RATE. He is upset that some defendants are being found NOT GUILTY. He directly blames experienced civilian lawyers as the reason for sex assault acquittals.

Here is a direct quote from SECDEF Gates, the boss of everyone in the military, including your commanders:

“This is one of the reasons why we’ve invested .. .almost $2 million in training our prosecutors … We’ve found … that the defendants hire lawyers that are specialists in this area and our prosecutors tended to be … not have that specialty and it is complex law and it is difficult to prosecute successfully, particularly if you don’t the right training … We’ve expanded the victim advocate program dramatically from about 300 to 3,000 around the world … in every base and installation.”

Most military sex cases involve drinking and sex

Here is a typical fact pattern: The woman is usually married, engaged or has a boyfriend. She has a few drinks, her inhibitions are lowered and she has consensual sex. Over the next day or two, a friend or the boyfriend learn of the sex. To avoid responsibility for her actions the woman then claims: 1) she does not remember what happened, or 2) she was too intoxicated to resist. The SARC is called, CID, OSI, NCIS show up, and the case goes all the way to court-martial. These types of sexual assault cases are resulting in convictions every day in the military.

Forcible rape is a heinous crime. Fortunately, in the military, forcible rapes are not common. Bogus, false, and trumped-up sexual assault allegations are the norm.

False allegations are serious and terrifying because if you lose, then an innocent man goes to jail and his life is ruined.

Currently, the military is teaching women that if they have ONE drink then they cannot consent to sex. One drink and they are not responsible for their actions. This bogus “rule” only applies so long as you are a female. This information is medically and legally false but it is what service members are being taught worldwide. “If you had sex after drinking any alcohol, then you are a victim,” or “if you have a few drinks, have sex, feel guilty about it, then you were taken advantage of and should report it.”

Nobody wants to be the victim of forcible rape or sexual assault. However, the military is spending millions of dollars a year to wage “The War on Sexual Assault.” Check out these 3 new rap videos motivating women to come forward with sexual assault allegations. It is a catchy song. But rap songs and real rape are two different things. You should not accuse a man of rape unless you were actually raped. If you have consensual sex with a guy and later regret it, then deal with it. Don’t accuse him of rape simply to save your reputation.

These videos make it seem cool to claim rape. Some of the lyrics are troubling. For example, “Don’t let a bad situation ever go unchecked”…”If you see something’ ill, it’s time to get popin’.” What does that even mean? If you hook up and feel guilty, then claim rape? This type of propaganda is dangerous and likely increases the number of false allegations.

INNOCENT? DOES IT MATTER?

The Military, for political reasons, is pushing the majority of sexual assault allegations to a court-martial. This includes cases where the accused has PASSED a polygraph, the alleged “victim” recants or substantially changes her story, where the “victim” is a well know liar, where the “victim” has falsely accused numerous other men of sexual assault the past, where there is no physical, forensic, or scientific evidence (and there should be), and so forth.

=Military commanders are afraid of the repercussions if they do not force bogus cases to court-martial. Many military officers, when dealing with a falsely accused and deciding whether or not to send the case to a court-martial will say, “Let’s send it to a court-martial and let the jury decide his fate. I am not a lawyer. If he is innocent, then the jury will say so.”

Commanders are required to make the tough call on whether the evidence supports a court-martial. They are not supposed to be like Pontius Pilate and “wash their hands” and act like they are not responsible for the fate of their service member. Furthermore, after they “wash their hands” the command and their prosecutors will do whatever it takes to win. Why?

Why would a command try to win a case where the accused is most likely innocent?

Why would a commander spend $50,000, $150,000 or more (in experts, witnesses, etc..) trying to put an innocent man in prison? Maybe because once they decide to go forward, then they want to make sure that they win, whether the accused is innocent or not. If they win, then they justify their decision to go forward. To many, “JUSTICE IS SERVED”, even if an innocent man is convicted. After all, they reason, “if he was innocent then the jury would have said so.”

How are innocent men convicted?

Usually, juries don’t send innocent men to jail on purpose. However, innocent men are convicted when the Government tries to win at all costs by:

• Giving the accused an inexperienced defense counsel
• Giving the accused an incompetent defense counsel
• Denying defense experts
• Paying their own “hired gun” experts that will say whatever the prosecution pays them to say
• Denying defense witnesses
• Hiding evidence
• Manipulating evidence
• Giving the accused an overworked defense lawyer
• Putting lying witnesses on the stand
• Coaching witnesses to say what they want them to say, whether true or not
• Doing a sloppy investigation
• Using lying CID, NCIS, OSI agents
• Not presenting all of the evidence to the jury
• Objecting when the defense tries to present relevant evidence to the jury
• Outright lying to the jury and twisting the facts of the case
• Rushing the case to trial so that the defense is unprepared
• and so forth.

Look at the letter below and the propaganda on the Army sex assault web site, http://www.sexualassault.army.mil. If you are a typical Army officer that wants a successful 20-year military career, would you stand up for one of your soldiers that was accused of sexual assault? You would hope so. But the sad truth is that most Army officers will not stand up. They simply do what the JAG prosecutors tell them to do and “wash their hands.”

Few Army officers will stand up for their soldiers, even when the soldier passes a polygraph and he is obviously falsely accused. We have dozens of examples where this has happened and is happening right now. Mr. Waddington is currently representing a senior enlisted soldier that is falsely accused of rape. The soldier passed an extensive polygraph. The lying victim changed her story when confronted at the Article 32. She was caught in blatant lies. At first, the command was somewhat supportive. However, the JAGs informed the command that the case should go forward and that the jury would not be able to learn about the successful polygraph. The command pushed the case forward to a General court-martial.

Letter from a client’s mother regarding representation of her son at a contested court martial jury trial in Korea, dated 28 April 2008. Posted with the express permission and insistence of client.

letter from Korea Client’s Mother

Mr. Waddington,

I have had a moment to reflect on your defense of my son April 18th, 2008. I will never be able to find the words to express the gratitude my son and I have for you. From the very beginning when you went to South Korea to meet with him and to question the witnesses to your closing argument at the court marshal, your defense was relentless and so focused that even though we, of course, were aware of your defense strategy, we sat spellbound in that court room as you laid it all out for the jury. You exposed the alleged sexual assault charge of rape for what it was—a false claim. My son is truly the victim and through your meticulous and sometime theatrical defense that day, you secured his not guilty verdict.

For the rest of my life, I will keep you in my prayers. If ever there is something I can do, in service to any future soldier you defend, please, please call upon me. We can never repay you in a lifetime for your belief in my son and your understanding our family is of modest means. My son was facing 30 years for a crime he didn’t commit. If you weren’t there to pinpoint for the jury the lack of credibility the shielded victim possessed, and this within the guidelines that her prior behavior was excluded due to rape shield laws, and then methodically countering every aspect of the prosecution’s case, my son would not be free to continue to serve his country.

You had left before you were able to sit and listen to so many Soldiers, NCOs and Officers that were in unison in their belief that with this, a sex crime charge, and all the stigmas that go along with it, though it was a false claim, that the only way my son would have justice would have been through your defense of him. All over South Korea, at the other camps, to Texas and Honolulu, my son received support. The Korean soldiers were telling their families and congratulating my son. I remember one Korean soldier, whose service was up months ago traveled untold miles just to stand by my son. His not guilty verdict was announced on the loud speaker that day at evening formation and the roar of support was unbelievable. I can’t tell you the number of people, known to and unknown to my son that came up to express their support and also give their impression it wouldn’t have turned out this way without you defending him. Thank you Mr. Waddington, for giving my son’s life back to him.

Mr. Waddington, I am forever grateful,
Deborah Kelling

DEATH OF IRAQI DETAINEE – Murder focus off of Winder, GA GI

By MONI BASU
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 8, 2007

Good news traveled home along with Georgia soldier Phil Shore.

A day after he arrived in Winder, Shore learned that an investigating officer recommended that the Army throw out murder charges against him.

Lt. Col. Raul Gonzalez, who presided over an Article 32 hearing for Spc. Christopher Phil Shore in Honolulu last month, said the Army lacked evidence to press ahead with the accusation of premeditated murder. Shore, 25, was accused of killing a detainee in Iraq.

“After a full evaluation of all the evidence, testimony and statements presented to me as part of the Article 32 Investigation for Specialist Christopher P. Shore, I find that reasonable grounds do not exist to believe that the accused committed Premeditated Murder,” wrote Gonzalez, who presided over the hearing.

“I recommend the charge be replaced with Article 128, Aggravated Assault,” Gonzalez said in the report released late Tuesday.

Shore, who came home on leave Monday, said he was pleased with the recommendation. He reports back to duty in Hawaii on Nov. 22.

“I think the man did the right thing,” he said about Gonzalez. “It’s been nerve-wracking going through all these situations. I didn’t do anything wrong.”

His attorney, Michael Waddington of Augusta, said he was relieved. “We were both having trouble sleeping over the past couple of days in anticipation of the report,” he said.

Shore had told Waddington to call him as soon as he knew the outcome, no matter what time of day. Late Tuesday night, Waddington saw a message pop into his BlackBerry. He immediately called up the e-mail, read the report and called Shore at about midnight.

“We can deal with the aggravated assault charge,” Waddington said. “You can bring us duress as an acceptable defense for aggravated assault but not for homicide. As Lieutenant Colonel Gonzalez noted, there is a lot of mitigating evidence in the case in Shore’s favor.”

An Article 32 is the military’s equivalent of a grand jury investigation. Also accused is Shore’s platoon sergeant, Sgt. 1st Class Trey A. Corrales, a native of San Antonio.

Shore maintained that he was ordered by Corrales to “finish” the detainee, who was already on the ground and bleeding profusely. Shore said he fired his gun, but intentionally missed the wounded man. The incident occurred just outside the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk on June 23.

Corrales waived the right to a hearing. His attorney, Frank Spinner, was not immediately reachable by phone.

Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division, in which Shore and Corrales serve, will determine in the next few weeks whether the Army will forge ahead with courts-martial.

In making his recommendation to Mixon, Gonzalez said no evidence existed that linked the shots fired by Shore to the detainee’s death two days later. He also said there was “overwhelming evidence presented” that Corrales “did with the intent to kill, shoot at and hit the detainee multiple times with an M-4 rifle.”

Gonzalez said that the soldiers of Shore’s scout platoon were in an “unhealthy environment.” He said Corrales’ leadership was “abusive” and “unlawful” and that Shore was under pressure to follow Corrales’ orders.

In a surprise move at the Article 32 hearing, Shore took the stand to give his account of events. In that testimony, he said he and three other soldiers reported the shooting to their supervisors hours after it happened.

“This act alone is very uncharacteristic of a person who was trying to hide or be evasive about the actions that occurred the night of 23 June 2007,” Gonzalez wrote.

Gonzalez also recommended to Mixon that the Army investigate the actions of Lt. Col. Michael Browder, Shore’s battalion commander.

Browder was relieved of command in Iraq after the detainee was killed but has not been charged.

In Shore’s case, Waddington said he expects Mixon to follow the recommendations of the investigating officer. That is generally what is done is high-profile cases, Waddington said.

Shore’s battalion returned to Hawaii in early October after a 15-month tour of Iraq. In August, a Black Hawk crash killed almost half of Shore’s platoon. Shore came back to America dealing with that loss and pending murder charges.

Before he arrived in Georgia, he and three platoon mates traveled across 11 states in four days to meet the families of four fallen comrades. It was a healing experience for everyone involved.

He said it was the best thing he had done in a while.

“It helped the families so much that we had gone completely out of our way to visit them,” he said. “It made them feel good to know someone cares that much about them.”

Shore, never one for attention said he arrived at the Atlanta airport on Monday feeling a bit of trepidation.

His father, Brian Shore, and an entourage of about 20 people were there to meet him.

“I was kind of dreading that,” he said.

At his brother’s house in Winder, the phone rings every five minutes. People call to ask about the soldier whose case made national headlines.

Shore said he just wants to “chill” on the couch.

“I just want a couple of days to forget everything,” he said.

Shore plans to visit his two young daughters in Florida and then leave home a couple of days early before flying back to Hawaii to return to duty on Nov. 22. He has a stop to make in California. He was supposed to be going to the wedding of Staff Sgt. Jason Paton.

Instead, he’ll visit his grave.

ALICIA A. CALDWELL

Thursday, November 3, 2005

Associated Press Writer

U.S. officer found not guilty of Abu Ghraib abuse

Two Army officers accused of improper conduct in a prisoner abuse case denied any wrongdoing in a brief hearing Thursday.

The hearing centered on allegations that Capt. P, a prosecutor, dined with the Lt. Col. N, who presided over an Article 32 hearing for a soldier accused of abusing three detainees in Afghanistan.

Capt. P. testified Thursday that he was at a Fort Bliss restaurant with his co-counsel in the case, Capt. E. Both Capt. P and Capt. E submitted receipts for their dinner.

Lt. Col. N, who testified by telephone, also denied the claim made in a written objection filed Wednesday by Sgt. Alan J. Driver’s lawyer, Capt. Michael Waddington. Lt. Col. N also submitted a dinner receipt and said he dined at an off-post restaurant with another officer not involved in the case.

Waddington filed the objection Wednesday after receiving sworn statements from two other officers that Capt. P and Lt. Col. N were spotted dining together at a Fort Bliss restaurant Tuesday night.

Waddington submitted a sworn statement from Capt. E, another defense lawyer, alleging the improper meeting. A similar statement from Capt. Christopher Beiring, who also faces charges in the abuse investigation sparked after two detainees died in American custody in a detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan in 2002, was not included.

Waddington said Beiring did not recant his statement, but asked to stay out of the Driver case because of his impending prosecution.

“He does not want to get involved,” Waddington said after the hearing.

Fort Bliss authorities will now decide if Driver’s Article 32 hearing, which is akin to a civilian grand jury, should be reheard.

Lt. Col. N ruled Wednesday that there was probable cause in the case in which Driver, 29, is charged with abuse and maltreatment in connection with reported attacks on three prisoners, including Omar al-Farouq, once a top al-Qaida lieutenant in Southeast Asia who in July escaped from American custody in Afghanistan. Lt. Col. N had not decided whether the case should be sent to a court-martial.

Waddington stood by his objection Thursday.

“I had an ethical obligation to look into this matter,” Waddington said.