Court Martial Results

Command Taints Court Martial – Case Dismissed

U.S. v. Navy E-6 – Norfolk Navy Base, VA

Ucmjarticle1201067 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Allegations: 4 Specifications of sexual assault/Abusive sexual contact, assault consummated by battery
Max Punishment: 1 YEAR IN PRISON, BCD, Sex offender registration
Result: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
Discharge: NONE
Location/Branch/Rank: Norfolk Navy Base, VA/Navy/E-6

Summary: 

Norfolk Navy BaseOur client was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow sailor. Mr. Waddington and Coast Guard attorney LT Nicholas Smith were prepared to fight the case in front of an enlisted jury.

Before opening statements, the defense learned that the prosecution had withheld part of the NCIS file that contained a witness statement that was very helpful to the defense. Supposedly, NCIS “forgot” to give us this witness statement. It just so happened that this statement helped to prove our client’s innocence.

The military defense lawyers immediately called the mystery witness only to discover that he changed his story since talking to NCIS. Also, the O-6 commander recently hand-selected him to be the victim’s Victim Advocate (VA). In other words, his duty was to protect and support the victim, no matter what. He was now tainted and refused to tell the truth.

The defense argued that the command blocked our client’s right to a fair trial by 1) hiding crucial evidence, and 2) by intentionally tainting the witness’s testimony by making him the Victim Advocate for the victim (which is considered Unlawful Command Influence or UCI).

Stephen King’s The Shining – a Coast Guard Version

U.S. v. Coast Guard E-7 – Juneau, AK

Ucmjarticle1201066 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Allegations: Maltreating – sexually harassing a female E-4 x 2, Drunk and disorderly conduct
Max Punishment: 1 YEAR IN PRISON, BCD
Result: NOT Guilty of maltreatment charges, Guilty of drunk and disorderly
Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, One-grade reduction
Discharge: NONE
Location/Branch/Rank: Coast Guard Station Juneau, AK/Coast Guard/E-7

Summary: 

Stephen King’s The Shining - A Coast Guard VersionOur client was accused of two specifications of maltreating/sexually harassing a female E-4 and drunk and disorderly conduct. The allegations stemmed from a TDY trip to a remote area of Alaska to teach Native American villagers about water safety (The Kids Don’t Float Program). While in the village, a volcano erupted and grounded all air traffic. They were stuck, sharing a hotel room, where excessive drinking and craziness occurred.

Mr. Waddington and LT Warner Butkus fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury. On direct examination, the alleged victim told a harrowing story of how she was trapped for four days in a freezing remote village, with no means of communication, and was forced to share a hotel room with our out of control client. Her version sounded like Stephen King’s The Shining.

The alleged victim claimed that she ran from our client’s drunken assault and locked herself in her room. But, the lock didn’t work so she quickly barricaded herself inside of her room using a large dresser as he screamed through the door and tried to get in. As a result, she alleges that she suffered serious mental suffering. The story was compelling because she was a brilliant actress. However, phone records don’t lie and it is difficult to lie when being cross-examined.

At trial

Stephen King’s The Shining When Mr. Waddington cross-examined her, her story fell apart and she was exposed as a melodramatic exaggerator. She was forced to admit that:

-She had a cell phone and wi-fi and communicated with her Army E-6 boyfriend during the supposed assault. She told him everything was going well.

-She was chain-smoking cigarettes throughout the evening and the next day with our client.

-She was buying drinks for our client.

-The next day, she went to a museum, lunch, dinner, and tried to watch a movie at the theater alone with our client

-She bought our client alcohol on the flight home…. and much more.

Our client testified and admitted that they were drinking whiskey and they were both hammered.

CID’s Recruiting Fraud Witch Hunt

U.S. v. Army 1LT – Fort Riley, KS

Ucmjarticle1201068 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Allegations: Larceny of Government Property over $500, Fraud, Conspiracy
Max Punishment: 45 YEARS IN PRISON, Dismissal
Result: No charges preferred. No Reprimand, No NJP/Mast. He is still serving on Active Duty and was promoted to Captain.
Discharge: NONE
Location/Branch/Rank: Fort Riley, KS/Army/1LT

Summary: 

Fort Riley Ks Military Base

Our client was accused of being involved in an Army recruitment scam. CID went on a witch hunt and targeted hundreds of soldiers, many of whom were convicted.

According to a CBS News story, Backlash from Army’s largest criminal investigation:

“It is the largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States Army — an after shock caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Running short of soldiers, the Army National Guard came up with a scheme called the Recruiting Assistance Program which paid a $2,000 bonus to members of the Guard who brought in a new recruit. A total of 105,000 soldiers got those bonuses, but some of them scammed the system by claiming to bring in recruits they had never met. Eighty soldiers have pleaded guilty or been convicted, and another 60 remain under indictment. Some soldiers claim they did nothing illegal and are being made scapegoats for a recruiting program the Army admits was badly mismanaged from the start.”

As we do in every case, we went on the offensive and prepared a defense for our client. Before the Army preferred charges, we reached out to the command and pleaded our case. The Battalion Commander and Command Sergeant Major, based on the evidence, supported our client and helped fight to clear his name.

Revenge of the Ex-Wives

U.S. v. Air Force E-8 – Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska

Ucmjarticle1201070 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

 

Original Allegations: Article 120 Rape/Sexual Assault – Four Alleged Victims
Max Punishment: LIFE in prison, Dishonorable Discharge, Sex offender registration, Loss of Retirement
Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
Sentence: NONE
Discharge: NONE
Location/Branch/Rank: Offutt Air Force Base, Omaha, NE/Air Force/E-8

Summary: 

Our client, a 24-year veteran, was planning to retire when he was targeted by Air Force OSI for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman he dated (this charge was later dropped). OSI then contacted our client’s ex-wives, past girlfriends, and any other woman that they could find.

Offutt Air Force Base Nebraska
After the acquittal, the defense team enjoyed a delicious dinner at the boiler room in omaha.

They told these women that our client was a rapist and they asked these women for help getting “the Rapist” off the street. They were trying to create more victims in order to strengthen their case. Mr. Waddington has seen this technique used by CID, NCIS, OSI, and CGIS.

OSI repeatedly called his ex-wives, filling their heads with lies in an attempt to get them to testify. Based on what they told OSI, multiple women were listed as sexual assault victims. Some remembered late-night sex with our client and sex after a night at the bar, OSI convinced them that it was rape.

Mr. Waddington was the second civilian defense lawyer on the case. He was hired after our client was told that he had no chance of winning. The client released his initial civilian lawyer and ADC.

When Mr. Waddington and co-counsel Captain Diane Ingram took over the case, they were facing an uphill battle. By the time we got to court, all but two of the “victims” dropped out of the case.

At trial, the accused fought all of the charges in front of an officer panel. The defense presented testimony from the accused and forensic psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Younggren, who explained how memory is fragile and can easily be contaminated by improper OSI interviews. On cross-examination, the defense skillfully took apart the testimony of the alleged victims, piece by piece.

The jury deliberated for a little over 4 hours before they acquitted our client of all charges. The defense team went out to celebrate at The Boiler Room in the Market District of Omaha, NE. Call an Article 120 lawyer if you are accused of a military rape or sexual assault.

Plenty of Fish Triple Rape

U.S. v. Navy E-5 – Miramar, CA – tried at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA

Ucmjarticle1201071 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

NOTE: This case was overturned on appeal.

Allegations: Rape of 3 different women
Max Punishment: 3 Life Sentences, Dishonorable Discharge, Sex offender registration
Result: NOT GUILTY of 2 out the 3 allegations. Convicted of 1 allegation.
Sentence: The Marine prosecutors demanded 20 years in prison. The jury gave him 1 year of confinement and a DD. Our client was happy.
Discharge: Rape case overturned on appeal.
Location/Branch/Rank: Miramar, CA – tried at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA/Navy/E-5

Summary: 

Our client was accused of violently raping three women in four months. He faced life in prison. There was lots of DNA evidence, a confession, and forensics. Our client was accused of finding women on the website, Plenty of Fish, luring them to his home, and raping them. The client’s original high-powered attorney, a retired Marine Judge, and Colonel told the client he had “no chance” and would be convicted of all rape charges and get 30 years in prison.

Ucmjarticle1201073 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

He then negotiated a 5 year “deal of a lifetime.” The client then fired this lawyer and hired our firm. Mr. Waddington fought the case with LCDR Chad Temple and Marine Captain Yin in front of a Marine jury, although our client was Navy.

Guy’s Night Out Crashed by E-4 Party Girl – Bad Idea!

U.S. v. Army E-7 – Shaw Air Force Base, SC/Pensacola, FL

Ucmjarticle1201074 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Allegations: MULTIPLE SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES, Fraternization
Max Punishment: 50 YEARS IN PRISON, DD, Sex offender registration
Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, Guilty of one specification of fraternization
SENTENCE: NO DISCHARGE, 30 days in the base brig, No Reduction in Rank
Discharge: NONE
Location/Branch/Rank: Shaw AFB, SC/Army/E-7

Summary: Shaw Air Force Base Shaw Afb LawyerOur client was TDY near Eglin, AFB, Florida for a training mission with the Air Force. His all-male team of NCOs went to McGuire’s Pub and the International Lounge for dinner and drinks. One of his team members, a male E-7 (Warrant Officer Candidate), invited a female E-4 to join the guys for drinks. As you can imagine, this story does not end well. The Warrant Officer was trying to hook up with the E-4, but the alleged victim was more interested in our client.

The next day, the male E-7 accused our client of sexually assaulting, harassing, and maltreating the female E-4 at the bar and in her room. Witnesses found our client in the E-4’s room and intervened. The E-4 claimed sexual assault and the other NCOs ganged up on our client. The Warrant Officer claimed that our client forcibly removed her breast from her shirt, groped her, and forced himself into her room.

Mr. Waddington and CPT Joseph Piasta fought the case in front of an enlisted jury.

At trial, we exposed the Warrant Officer as a lying dirtbag. The other NCOs crumbled under cross-examination and the alleged victim was shown to be a drama queen and exaggerator.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, Guilty of one specification of fraternization

SENTENCE: NO DISCHARGE, 30 days in the local brig, No Reduction in Rank

Before You Allow Your Son to Enlist in the Coast Guard, Read This!

U.S. v. Coast Guard E-4 – USCG Base Ketchikan tried at CG Sector Juneau, Alaska

Ucmjarticle1201077 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

 

Allegations: Rape, Sexual Assault, Assault Consummated by Battery, Attempting Unlawful Viewing
Max Punishment: 90+ years in prison, Dishonorable Discharge, Sex offender registration
Result: NOT GUILTY OF RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, & ABUSIVE SEXUAL CONTACT. GUILTY of assault and battery for throwing water and attempted unlawful viewing.
Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, restriction to USCG Base Ketchikan for 60 days, reduction to E-3, forfeiture of one month’s pay. Discharge: NONE
Location/Branch/Rank: USCG Base Ketchikan & Juneau, Alaska/Coast Guard/E-4

Summary: 

Another example of the prosecution stacking the deck and using anti-male propaganda to win convictions. The Coast Guard improperly stacked  the jury with a disproportionate number of women and former “victims.” (This is not uncommon in the Coast Guard. Read this article to learn more).

Then, they tried to manipulate the mostly female jury by bringing in a man-hating expert. Below are images posted by the Coast Guard’s “expert” to prove that all men are rapists and the images posted below teach men that raping women is okay.

Our client, a Coast Guard mechanic, was charged with raping and sexually assaulting a female Seaman. He was also charged with sexually assaulting her. In addition, he was charged with entering her bathroom while she showered and pouring a cup of cold water on her (assault) and trying to view her. She accused him after she learned that she was facing a discharge for misconduct. We were not hired until after he was charged.

CGIS Tries to Frame Our Client

Ucmjarticle1201080 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Corrupt CGIS selectively twisted evidence in an attempt to portray our client as a serial rapist. They searched the USA to find women to say that he was a predator. They interviewed over 14 women, including his past girlfriends. CGIS told these women that our client was a rapist and predator. They told them false information about the case and asked for help taking him off of the streets. Then, CGIS asked these women about his sexual predisposition. They found one woman to say that 7 years ago, our client rolled over and flopped his arm on her side while they shared a bed after a night of drinking. The woman said that it was NOT sexual and he NEVER touched her in a sexual way. The prosecutors added this witness to their witness list and argued that it was a sexual assault, even though this woman insisted it was not an assault and was not sexual.

Knowing that the Coast Guard would do anything to win a conviction, Mr. Waddington and LT Terrance Thornburg prepared to fight the case in front of an enlisted panel.

Victim’s Past False Sexual Assault Allegation

 

Meanwhile, the defense uncovered evidence that proved that the alleged victim was a liar and had committed various crimes. She moved in with our client after the first alleged assault and hung out with him all of the time. We received evidence from CGIS that showed that she falsely accused another Coast Guard member of raping her. CGIS determined that the claim was unfounded, meaning it did not happen.

CGIS also gave the defense text messages in which the alleged victim was joking with our client about the alleged rape and agreeing to meet up with him and drink beer.

Victim’s Motive and Past Misconduct

When she accused our client, the victim was facing an Administrative Separation for misconduct and her second NJP/Mast in 16 months (this requires an automatic separation). A day after she was told that she was facing separation, she cried rape against our client. We also learned that the alleged victim received Non-judicial punishment for false official statement and other misconduct. She even tried to lie her way out of her Mast/NJP but was convicted nonetheless.

Did the Coast Guard do the right thing? You be the judge.

Ucmjarticle1201081 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

 

After accusing our client and despite her lengthy pattern of lying and misconduct, they allowed the alleged victim to stay in the Coast Guard and branch into law enforcement (ME field). She was then moved to Mobile, Alabama to be near family and the beach (for therapy reasons). All of her past investigations were set aside and she started off with a clean slate in Mobile.

The Coast Guard lawyers then fought hard to suppress the alleged victim’s past lying, her numerous crimes, her false accusation of sexual assault, and then tried to smear our client.

The judge, who had limited experience in sexual assault cases shut down 90% of our defense (the lying, false accusation, manipulation, and other misconduct) because it could embarrass the victim, pursuant to MRE 412. We are contesting his rulings on appeal.

Jury Stacked Against the Defense

When we showed up for the court-martial, the Convening Authority, in collaboration with his JAG lawyers, deleted many of the jury members and replaced them with handpicked alternates. Then, they added 4 females to replace members that were struck from the panel.

It is extremely rare to have such a high number of female panel members because the panel is supposed to reflect the composition of the unit. Having female members is not an issue. What we have a problem with is intentionally stacking the panel with a particular sex/race/or demographic in order to prejudice the accused and deny him a fair trial.

As you will see, the prosecution tried to prejudice the females with the hard-core feminist expert witness they tried to call.

Before we showed up, aside from stacking the panel, the SARC/SAPR tampered with the jury by teaching the jury members a class about consent. The class taught a different standard of consent than the UCMJ. For
example, some were taught that a man must ask “verbal permission” at every step of every sexual encounter. Otherwise, it is sexual assault and there is no consent.

When the judge clarified the law, which does not require verbal consent, about half of the jury still said that verbal consent was required, otherwise it was sexual assault.

Verbal Consent: May I Kiss Your Lips?

 

For example, before kissing a woman (or even a girlfriend or wife) a man must ask and receive a verbal “Yes” to each question:

“May I kiss your lips?”

“May I kiss your neck?”

“May I kiss your ear?”

“May I French kiss you?”

“May I put my hand on your leg?” and so forth.

Half of the panel said that verbal consent was required, even though it is not the law.

It gets worse. 13 out of 14 jurors were coworkers and/or friends with the prosecutor. Some of them shared office space with the prosecutor. One of them had been to his house for social events.

In the end, we ended up with 5 jurors. All 5 knew and worked with the prosecutor.

4 of the 5 remaining jurors were SAPR trained females and 1 was a domestic violence victim. The only remaining male, an O-3, said he was friends with the prosecutor and their kids did Girl Scouts together. The prosecutor’s wife was the Girl Scout Den Mother. We kept this member because he seemed fairer than the alternates. For example, one alternate said she would hold it against the defense and the accused if the victim cried on cross-examination.

Special Victim Counsel Out of Control

Ucmjarticle1201083 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

 

In the trial, the prosecution launched dozens of bogus objections in an attempt to stop the defense from speaking. The Special Victim Counsel (the victim’s lawyer and not a party to the case) was allowed to scream objections from the audience and mumble loudly under her breath throughout the trial. (This is prohibited by law, but the Coast Guard lets it happen).

Then, they tried to call a Juneau Rape Victim Advocate as an expert witness to bolster the alleged victim. The Rape Advocate had NEVER spoken with the victim and knew NOTHING about the case. However, she was prepared to testify against our client and help put him in prison.

Mr. Waddington did some research into this alleged “expert witness” and quickly learned that she was a man-hating bigot. Her social media posts were full of anti-male posts and images. We learned that she teaches a class to feminist groups called The Rape Culture, in which she talks about how all men are raised to be rapists and how we live in a society where parents unwittingly condone rape and enable their children to be rapists. In addition, the propaganda in her posts suggested that any time a beautiful woman is used in a TV or magazine ad, the woman is being exploited by men and is part of “Rape Culture.” If a man looks at the beautiful woman, then he is part of the “Rape Culture.”

We also learned that according to her social media activities and groups:

 

-Anyone who questions a rape allegation (even if it is false) is re-raping and re-abusing the woman (including lawyers and cops).

-Looking at an attractive woman is leering and leering is the same as sexual assault.

-By shaving their legs, women are being subjugated to a sexist/rapist male agenda.

And so forth…

The judge ruled that the Rape Advocate was not allowed to testify.

Then, the prosecution brought in Dr. William Keppler, a well known Department of Defense Forensic Psychiatrist, to testify against our client. Dr. Keppler never interviewed our client, the victim, nor did he read the case file (at the request of the prosecution). In his cross-examination, Mr. Waddington turned Dr. Keppler against the prosecution and got him to admit that the victim’s story “was consistent with a false allegation.” (Ouch).

 

The prosecution then played a recording where our client supposedly confessed to the crimes.

After battling it out in court and calling numerous impeachment witnesses, the defense rested.

Our client was acquitted of all sexual assault charges. He was convicted of going into the alleged victim’s bathroom and pouring cold water on her.

At sentencing, the mentally unhinged victim made an unsworn statement and started screaming at our client and Mr. Waddington. She claimed that our client ruined her life and now she was afraid to be around people. Both were lies. We were allowed to present evidence to rebut her lies. We presented Facebook posts that showed her drinking and partying like crazy in Alabama (with various male Sailors on different occasions). and saying how happy she was to get out of Alaska. These images were taken in the weeks after the offenses and leading up to the trial. We were also allowed to mention that she falsely accused another Coast Guard member of sexual assault.

NCIS To Catch a Predator Sting Nets No Jail Time

U.S. v. Army E-8 –Torii Station, Okinawa, Japan

Ucmjarticle1201085 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

Allegations: Article 80 – 4 Specifications of Attempted Sexual Abuse of a Child, Article 120c UCMJ Indecent Exposure
Max Punishment: Over 140 years in prison, Dishonorable Discharge
Result: Convicted of several of the attempt charges 
Sentence: NO PUNISHMENT
Discharge: Mandatory DD
Location/Branch/Rank: Torri Station, Okinawa, Japan/Army/E-8

Summary: 

Our client was an Army Special Forces E-8 that was caught in the notorious “To Catch a Predator” sting operation that NCIS has been running in Okinawa Japan. Our client was charged with Attempted Sexual Assault of a Child and numerous other charges.

This operation has snagged over 100 service members stationed in Japan. At this time of this trial, all but one of the cases resulted in convictions. Going in, we knew our chance of a full acquittal, based on the evidence, was highly unlikely.

NCIS Uses Their Adult Female Agent as Bait

DessertIn the sting operation, NCIS used Craigs List to attract military men. Then, after several weeks, they claim that they are a minor (under 16 years old) and start to engage in sexual chats. Finally, NCIS lures the service member to a house on Kadena Air Base to meet with the “minor female” for sex.

The “minor” is actually a female NCIS agent that is pretending to be 14 or 15 years old.

Our client was chatting with the fake underage female for weeks. The conversation turned sexual and she invited him to meet her at a house on Kadena. When he went to the house, NCIS tried to tackle and arrest him. Our client fought the NCIS agents and threw several of them to the ground.

He was eventually arrested and charged. They used evidence from his phone, Craig’s list, and computer chat logs to back up the charges. The prosecution wanted a plea deal that would limit his sentence to 3 years in prison.

Court Martial Trial in Okinawa

To Catch A PredatorOur client learned that the average sentence on Okinawa for these same crimes was 3-5 years.

Our client rejected the plea deal and chose to fight the case in front of an enlisted jury.

At trial, Mr. Waddington and CPT Aaron Matthew attacked the sneaky investigative tactics used by NCIS. In the end, our client was convicted of several charges.

At sentencing, we presented evidence in mitigation.

SENTENCE: The jury sentenced our client to NO PUNISHMENT. After the trial, Mr. Waddington and the client went to eat pancakes and visited the Japanese WWII bunkers.

Fake Rape Victim Exposed in Open Court

YouTube video

Court-martial lawyer, Michael Waddington, discusses an Army sexual assault case that he defended at Fort Gordon, GA.

Ucmjarticle1201201 Gonzalez &Amp; Waddington - Attorneys At Law

He describes how he exposed the fake rape victim in open court and exposed her lies, fake injuries, and false recordings. Call 1-800-921-8607 to speak with a civilian defense attorney today.

Call our experienced military sex assault lawyers today for help finding the best civilian military attorneys for your case.

marine corps sexual assault sexual assault marine corps

Alleged Victim’s BAH Fraud Exposed at Trial

YouTube video

Court-martial lawyer, Michael Waddington, discusses a Marine Corps sexual assault case that he defended at Camp Pendleton, CA.

He describes how impeached the alleged victim with her BAH fraud and prior inconsistent statements. Call 1-800-921-8607 to speak with a civilian defense attorney today.

Contact our military defense lawyers today for help finding the top court martial attorneys for your situation.

Scroll to Top
Skip to content