Why hire experienced civilian military counsel when the military gives you a lawyer for free? the accused’s lead military defense counsel had represented him for more than six months and devoted 215 hours to his defense. She came to believe that continuing to represent him zealously could affect her next Army assignment, her professional reputation,…
Continue reading ›CAAF answers an unusual question about who is an appellate military judge. In United States v. Forrest, No. 25-0081 (C.A.A.F. Sept. 21, 2026), CAAF held that an Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) judge could participate in deciding a case while on terminal leave before retirement. The issue Senior Judge Walker began terminal leave on…
Continue reading ›CAAF’s September 28, 2026, decision in United States v. Menard, No. 25-0173/AF, presents another chapter in the Court’s unsettled jurisprudence over “common plan or scheme” evidence under Military Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2). This time, however, the Court found error. The lesson from Menard is straightforward. Calling several acts a “course of conduct” does not establish…
Continue reading ›If military investigatiors want you to cooperate against someone else, the paperwork matters as much as anything you say. Rice is a Government appeal from a military judge’s abatement of trial order because the Government lost a recording of the proffer session. No recording, no trial. At Cave & Freeburg, we defend service members in…
Continue reading ›On August 6, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), the military’s highest court, decided United States v. Hunt, No. 25-0257, 2026 CAAF LEXIS 661 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 6, 2026). The decision is important for any service member appealing a court-martial conviction, and especially for those convicted of sexual assault under…
Continue reading ›When there is no eyewitness to the charged act itself, sexual assault prosecutions under UCMJ art. 120, 10 U.S.C. ¬ß 920, often rise or fall on what the complaining witness told other people shortly afterward. Those statements are hearsay. The government gets them in, if at all, through an exception. The workhorse exception is the…
Continue reading ›United States v. Rice, ARMY 20240586, 2026 CCA LEXIS 353 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 30 Jul. 2026) (summ. disp.): a military judge’s impartiality. The case in brief An enlisted panel sitting as a general court-martial convicted Specialist Rice, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of making false official statements in violation of UCMJ art.…
Continue reading ›The Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) decided United States v. Varlaro, ARMY 20240319, 2026 CCA LEXIS 309 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 29 Jun. 2026), on 29 June 2026. The opinion answers a question the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) left open in United States v. Saul, 86 M.J. 30 (C.A.A.F. 2025):…
Continue reading ›The jurisdiction question The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) decided United States v. Thomas, ARMY 20240080, 2026 CCA LEXIS 318 (A. Ct. Crim. App. 8 Jul. 2026) (mem. op.), on 8 July 2026. An officer panel convicted Captain Thomas, contrary to his pleas, of sexual assault, two specifications of sexual assault of…
Continue reading ›A partner in an affair asked to speak as a victim at sentencing. The military judge said yes. The United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) said no, and then affirmed the sentence anyway. The Decision On 24 July 2026, ACCA issued its summary disposition in United States v. Ayuso, ARMY 20240332 (Army Ct.…
Continue reading ›
