Military Drug Charge Case Results

If you are a member of the armed forces and need assistance with a military criminal charge, contact Military Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for more information and assistance.

 

Cocaine Use: Finding of No Misonduct and Retained for Future Military Service. 

A U.S. Army National Guard Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) tested positive for cocaine use during a unit-wide urinalysis for unlawful drug use.  The NCO, a female of Latin-American decent, consumed a Latin herbal tea made partially with coca leaves, a major component to cocaine, several hours before the urinalysis.  The NCO’s family member offered her the tea as a home remedy for an upset stomach.  The NCO consumed the tea without realizing it was of the type made with cocoa leaves and thereafter attended her scheduled monthly battle drill.  While there, she participated in a urinalysis that detected the cocaine metabolite in her system.  In accordance with army regulations, the NCO was both flagged from favorable personnel actions and processed for administrative separation from military service.  The NCO was in the zone at the time for re-enlistment and promotion with plans to attend both Air Assault and Officer Candidate School.  She was also a leading candidate for a full-time AGR position with the National Guard.  Because of the positive urinalysis and resulting flagging action, all of these plans were placed on hold.  Needless to day, the NCO had a lot on the line and much to lose with the pending separation action, to include her military career.

The NCO was represented by Attorney John L. Calcagni III for purposes of her separation hearing board.  Attorney Calcagni worked hand-in-hand with his client to prepare an ironclad defense at the hearing.  Attorney Calcagni’s defense employed a two-part strategy.  First, Attorney Calcagni sought to highlight for the board members the NCO’s impeccable service record.  This female had nearly ten (10) years of military service at the time.  She had previously deployed to Iraq.  She was also highly regarded among her peers and by her chain of command, to include both her Battalion Commander and Battalion Sergeant Major.  Similarly, her Company Commander and First Sergeant gave her stellar reviews.  She also had countless certificates, achievements and awards in her service record.  Attorney Calcagni marshaled this information before the board members in the form of both live and recorded witness testimony as well as documents from the NCO’s personnel files.

The second prong of Attorney Calcagni’s defense was to demonstrate that the NCO innocently ingested the cocoa tea without knowing of its chemical make-up.  Part of this defense prong was to establish the small amount of cocaine base in each tea bag, and how that small amount ingested close in time to a urinalysis could yield results equal or similar to that of the NCO.  Lastly, Attorney Calcagni sought to show that this small amount of cocaine base, if ingested into the body, would not produce any psychological or physiological effects that would give notice to an ingested illicit substance.  To obtain and present this evidence, Attorney Calcagni underwent a nationwide search for toxicologists with Department of Defense (DOD) and/or military backgrounds.  He located such an expert with extensive experience performing urinalysis testing for the U.S. Army.  Attorney Calcagni then employed an investigator to go into the local community to purchase the cocoa tea in question, which is available for sale in inner city Hispanic markets.  The investigator acquired the type and brand tea consumed by the NCO.  He also acquired more potent samples from the local market place.  A sample of the type and brand of tea consumed by the NCO was then shipped to a laboratory, at the toxicologist’s instruction, for chemical testing.  This testing confirmed Attorney Calcagni’s theory – that someone of the NCO’s height and weight, who consumed one standard cup of the brewed cocoa tea within hours of a urinalysis, would test positive for the presence of cocaine as did this unlucky Soldier.  The toxicologist completed a report of the laboratory’s findings and set forth his opinion, which was that one bag of the tea contained enough cocaine base such that if consumed within hours of the urinalysis, would yield test results for the presence of cocaine in a similar quantity as the NCO.  He further opined that the NCO would not have experienced any effects from the substance and therefore, could have innocently ingested it.  The report was presented for the board members’ consideration.

In closing argument, Attorney Calcagni argued that the NCO was the epitome of an American Soldier who lived and breathed the Army values.  He also argued that she was the antithesis of a drug user.  Because of her ethnic background, her family member provided her a substance that though comprised partially of the cocoa leaf, is apparently lawful in the United States given its availability for purchase in the local community.  Lastly, he argued that her character and reputation in the National Guard buttressed and supported her innocent ingestion, which was scientifically proven by the toxicologist’s report.  As a result of these efforts, the board members voted unanimously that the NCO committed no misconduct.  The members further voted for the NCO to be retained for future service, and be immediately reinstated to duty and for all other service-related benefits.  Congratulations to this NCO, who has since become a Commissioned Officer, for this outstanding result.

Operating Under the Influence Case Results

If you are facing charges for OUI, Drug Possession, or any kind of Sexual Assault crime, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for assistance and a free consultation.

OUI 2nd for Alcohol; OUI for Drugs; and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex: OUI First-Offender Sanctions Imposed and All Other Charges Dismissed. 

Police received a report of a motorist following a city garbage truck during the early morning hours.  The report indicated that the motorist was believed to be intoxicated and was soliciting a female garbage trucker worker to perform a sexual act on him.   Police arrived on the scene and stopped the motorist.  At the time of the stop, officers detected a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the motorist, as well as observed him to have both blood shot eyes and slurred speech.   During a discussion with the motorist, he admitted to having consumed several beers earlier in the night and appeared to be disoriented.  Officers administered a battery of field sobriety tests to the motorists all of which he failed.  Officers than placed the motorist under arrest and transported to the police station.  He then participated in a breathalyzer test that measured his BAC to be .24 –three times the legal limit of .08.  During the booking process, officers discovered a bottle of narcotic mediation on the motorist’s person person.   As a result of the foregoing, police charged the motorist with Operating under the Influence (OUI) of Alcohol (2nd Offense); OUI of Narcotics; and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex.  Attorney Calcagni represented the motorist.  At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated to have the OUI for Narcotics and Annoying a Person of the Opposite Sex charges dismissed.  Attorney Calcagni further negotiated for the motorist to be treated as a first-time offender for purposes of the OUI of Alcohol charge.  The motorist was then sentenced to a Continuation without Finding for twenty-four (24) months with minimum first-time OUI offender sanctions.  Providing the motorist is not charged with a new offense during this period, his case will be dismissed in two years and he will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident. 

Larceny and Conspiracy Case Results

If you have been charged with Larceny or a Conspiracy crime, contact Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or further assistance.

Larceny and Conspiracy to Commit Larceny Over $250: Continued Without a Finding. 

Mother and son were charged with engaging in an elaborate scheme to steal from various department stores during the holiday season.  According to law enforcement authorities, the duo allegedly stole from innumerous stores in two states and multiple locations within each state.  The mother and son were ultimately apprehended after being captured on video surveillance while leaving a department store with a carriage full of merchandise for which they did not pay.  Some of the stolen property was recovered while other property was never recovered.  Authorities are unable to estimate the value of the total loss to all retail victims.  Notwithstanding, the mother and son were individually charged with Larceny Over $250 and Conspiracy to commit the same.  Attorney Calcagni represented the mother against the pending charges.  He successfully negotiated a disposition of her case, which spared her from jail time – as requested by the prosecutor – and provided her with the opportunity to maintain a clean criminal record, which she has maintained for most of her life.  Attorney Calcagni obtained a Continuation without a Finding (CWOF) for twelve (12) months on his client’s behalf.  Providing she is not charged with a new offense during this period, her case will be dismissed in one year and she will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident.   Congratulations to this client.

Assault with a Dangerous Weapon Case Result

If you have been charged with Assault with a Dangerous Weapon contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation and assistance.

Assault and Battery and Assault with a Dangerous Weapon:  Dismissed.  Two siblings residing under the same roof allegedly took sibling rivalry to another level.  An adult female and her adult brother had a verbal argument in their family home.  When the matter could not be settled verbally, the sister obtained a baseball and physically attacked her brother by striking him with it about his body.  The police were notified and charged the alleged victim’s sister with both misdemeanor and felony assault.  She was then represented by Attorney Calcagni.  At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni first successfully negotiated for dismissal of the misdemeanor Assault and Battery charge.   Second, he negotiated for amendment of felony assault charge to a misdemeanor.  Third and lastly, he negotiated for his client to admit no guilt to the sole remaining charged offense.  While maintaining her innocence, she was placed on unsupervised pretrial probation for nine (9) months.  Providing she is not charged with a new offense during this period, her case will be dismissed in nine (9) months and she will not incur a criminal conviction from this incident.   Congratulations to this fortunate client.

Assault and Battery Case Results

If you have been involved in an assault and battery, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation and more information.

Assault and Battery and Witness Intimidation: Dismissed. 

Boyfriend and girlfriend reside together in the same apartment.  After a verbal argument, the boyfriend physically assaulted his girlfriend.  When she attempted to call the police, he took a cell phone from her possession.  When she attempted to flee the apartment, he physically restrained her and removed her clothing to prevent her from leaving.  Ultimately, the girlfriend broke free and notified the authorities.  As a result, her boyfriend was criminally charged with Assault and Battery and Witness Intimidation.  Attorney Calcagni represented the boyfriend.  At a pretrial conference, Attorney Calcagni successfully negotiated for the dismissal of the entire case and its charges.  The boyfriend will not sustain a criminal conviction or any punishment from this unfortunate chain of events.

U.S. Army Recruiter Retained Following Administrative Separation Board

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Recruiter, with 17 years of service, was referred for administrative separation from military service.  The Recruiter was alleged to have engaged in an inappropriate and unlawful relationship with a female recruit.  The Recruiter's Commander initiated an investigation into specific allegations the Recruiter unlawfully took the female recruit to parties; invited her to his home; spent time working out with her at a local civilian gym; and engaged in romantic relations together.  Once the recruit shipped off to basic training, the Recruiter allegedly maintained contact with her; assisted her with going AWOL; and stating lies and falsified documents to conceal the alleged misconduct.

The Commander's investigation yielded sufficient evidence, in the investigator's opinion, to substantive charges against the Recruiter for fraternizing with the recruit, making false official statements, and falsifying a leave/pass form.  The Recruiter was referred for Non-Judicial Punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The Recruiter's Brigade Commander served as the Article 15 Hearing Officer.  After reviewing evidence presented by the government related to the charges, and "allegedly" reviewing exculpatory evidence submitted by the Recruiter in his behalf, the Article 15 Officer found the Recruiter guilty of all charges and specifications.  Thereafter, the Commander relieved the Recruiter from his recruiting position and referred him for administrative separation from the U.S. Army with a recommendation that his military service be characterized as Other Than Honorable (OTH).  The Recruiter demanded his right to an administrative separation board and hired Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent him at this proceeding.

At the hearing, the government relied upon both the recruiter's Article 15 convictions and related evidence to support the government’s request that the Recruiter be discharged from military service with an OTH.  Attorney Calcagni delicately cross-examined each of three government witnesses, all whom testified that the Recruiter had committed inexcusable misconduct and therefore, should be separated from future military service.  However, each witness conceded on cross-examination that their opinions and recommendations were based in whole on the Recruiter’s Article 15 convictions.

In the Recruiter's defense, Attorney Calcagni and his military defense counsel counterpart, Captain Jason S. Ballard – with whom Calcagni has a longstanding working relationship and proven track record – called two character witnesses.  Both witnesses, former members of the Recruiter's chain of command, testified that the Recruiter was a flawless Non-Commissioned Officer, exceptional asset to the U.S. Army and recruiting community, and should be retained without question for future military service.  One character witness further testified that decisions to refer the Recruiter for both an Article 15 and administrative separation may have been product of a biased command climate.

Attorney Calcagni presented further evidence that challenged the integrity of the Recruiter's Article 15 hearing, as well as the reliability of government’s evidence relied upon by the Article 15 officer, especially when compared to overwhelming evidence that exculpated the Recruiter from any wrongdoing.  Attorney Calcagni – in a bold and brave manner – also challenged the credibility and veracity of the Recruiter’s chain of command, many of whom had made prejudicial remarks to recruiter before and during the Article 15 hearing; testified inconsistently with the evidence presented; and apparently engaged in coercion or other inappropriate actions during the course of investigation leading up to and following the Article 15 hearing.

After sworn testimony from the Recruiter himself, and a passionate and compelling closing argument by Attorney Calcagni claiming that "perception is not realty," "members in uniform are not impervious to human weaknesses of misrepresentation, bias, prejudice and self-interest,” and that the Recruiter was “entitled to a fair shake” both at the Article 15 hearing and at his separation hearing, the separation board members voted that the Recruiter did not engage in the thrust of the charged misconduct and should be retained for further military service  in his recruiting capacity.  Congratulations to this Soldier!