Article 15 (Non-judicial Punishment)

The term "Article 15" refers to a military mandate known as a "non-judicial Punishment." Article 15 allows a commanding officer to punish an active-duty military member for a minor offense. The process is similar to a court-martial, however it is used as an alternative for offenses considered to be mild misconduct issues, rather than the more serious crimes that typically command the court martial process.

What to expect when issued an Article 15

Being subject to an Article 15 is not unlike a typical civilian arrest in some ways. Once a commander issues you an Article 15 he or she will formally notify you that you are being given one, and will provide you with the details of your misconduct. You will be presented with any evidence against you, followed by a notification of your rights under the UCMJ. Should you refuse the Article 15, you will be issued a court martial and given the opportunity to present your side of the story along with any evidence or witness testimony in your favor. (Refusing an Article 15 is not the same as pleading not-guilty.)

Factors to consider

In some cases, an accused member of the armed forces may be able to present clear undisputable evidence that they are not guilty of an offense; in which case a court-martial may not pose a great deal of risk while simultaneously dismissing all allegations. If the evidence presented is insufficient to prove innocence however, an individual may face much more severe penalties when found guilty.

In accepting an Article 15 you are agreeing to let your commander decide whether or not you are guilty and what (if any) punishment you should receive. Pleading not guilty will not result in a court-martial, but will instead open the opportunity to present your case to the commander. Accepting an Article 15 means that the consequences of the charge are much less serious than those of a court-martial.

If you are facing an Article 15

If you are facing an article 15 from your commander, understand that you have choices. The outcome of an Article 15 will be on your military record permanently regardless of whether you accept or choose a court-martial. An experienced Military criminal defense attorney can help you consider your options and assist you in making the best decision. If you are currently facing an Article 15 contact RI Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for more information.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Law Office of John L. Calcagni III offers clients representation in the areas of Criminal Defense, Military Defense, Federal Criminal Defense, OUI Defense in MA , and Assault and Battery matters. John L. Calcagni, III is licensed to practice in state and federal courts in the States of Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case. If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Massachusetts OUI

Since the beginning of 2012, nearly 1.3 million people within the United States have ended up in police custody for operating a motor vehicle under the influence. While many illegal substances such as drugs are a common cause for intervention by law enforcement, alcohol is not only legal for those 21 and over, but it is also available in most social establishments. For some people a mere two drinks will place them over the legal limit. This means that it is very easy for anyone to find themselves operating a motor vehicle while over 0.08% BAC.

Good Intentions

Accidents and fatalities that occur due to operating a vehicle while intoxicated are certainly not intentional, but they do happen every day in The United States - most of which are increasing their efforts to combat the problem through tougher laws, and more severe penalties. What many people fail to realize is that alcohol does not need to be determined as the cause of an accident, but instead, needs only be present in the blood. Mechanical failure is also a common cause of accidents, but if alcohol is involved, it is safe to assume you will be charged with a DUI. The same issue can stem from a faulty blinker, broken tail light, or an out of date inspection sticker.

What to expect during a stop

Being arrested for OUI can be a frightening and embarrassing experience. While it may seem like attempting to appear sober is a good idea, there are many methods used by Massachusetts Law enforcement to determine whether or not you are intoxicated and to what degree. The most common method is a breathalyzer test. Refusing a breathalyzer in and of itself is a crime that carries its own criminal penalties and sanctions. Should your traffic stop later result in a trial, a prosecutor may attempt to use your refusal as proof of guilt. Another method is a simple blood test which may follow an arrest, and refusing a blood test is also a crime.

What to expect once you are under arrest

If a police officer suspects that you are driving under the influence of alcohol and you refuse a sobriety test, you will immediately be arrested. If submission to the sobriety test or a trial reveals that you are guilty your license will be revoked, your driving record will be permanently affected, and your insurance premiums will skyrocket. This is in addition to any possible jail time, fines, and mandatory sobriety classes.

If you have been arrested for Operating Under the Influence

If you are arrested for OUI in Massachusetts please contact Rhode Island Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni, now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information.

When Law Enforcement Assaults Defendants

In light of the recent situation involving a RI police officer and a woman in handcuffs, this article seemed pertinent. If you have been charged with a crime and need legal assistance, contact RI Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a confidential consultation.

ACLU Sues L.A. Sheriff & District Attorney
By MATT REYNOLDS

       LOS ANGELES (CN) - A criminal defense attorney claims in court that Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley, Sheriff Leroy Baca and their offices unlawfully suppress evidence favorable to criminal defendants and cover up excessive-force complaints against deputies.

     Plaintiff Jeffrey Douglas sued Cooley, Baca and their offices in Superior Court. Douglas claims the defendants have violated the constitutional rights of "countless criminal defendants" by withholding evidence and failing to keep proper records of complaints against deputies.

     The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its landmark 1963 Brady vs. Maryland decision that prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence before trial.

     But Douglas says that Cooley unlawfully requires that exculpatory evidence be "'clear and convincing'" before it is disclosed, and allows suppression of such evidence if it is related to a pending investigation, or if a deputy district attorney deems that it unlikely to affect a verdict.

     "Not only do these requirements that deputy district attorneys suppress favorable evidence lack any legal basis, but they are also expressly contrary to law," the complaint states.

     Douglas also claims that Sheriff Baca fails to properly maintain inmate complaints against deputies for 5 years, as required by the penal code.

     "In the face of this unequivocal statutory mandate, an LASD [Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department] representative has testified in open court that respondents Baca and LASD have decided that, in the case of inmates in the Los Angeles County jails, they will simply ignore the requirements of the statute and instead file inmate complaints about deputies in only the inmates' files, such that LASD simply cannot search for inmate complaints implicating specific deputies," the complaint states.

     Douglas claims that policy results in "countless Brady violations," and that defendants cannot get access to complaints, even though Los Angeles County "unquestionably has them."

Read more HERE