Prosecutors Asking for Reinstatement of Charges Against War Crimes Suspect

Military prosecutors are asking the military’s highest court to reinstate the overturned conviction of a Marine who played a role in committing one of the worst war crimes to surface from the Iraq war, which involved the kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi civilian.

Last month, military judges supported Sergeant Lawrence Hutchins III’s claims that his rights were violated when he was held in solitary confinement without access to a lawyer for seven days during his 2006 interrogation in Iraq. In a motion filed last week, military prosecutors state that the Marine waived his right to counsel at the time and willfully told his side of the story without being coerced, and the prosecutors subsequently ask the court to reconsider its ruling.

The Marines’ defense lawyer has filed an opposition to the government’s motion, asking the court to summarily dismiss it and to immediately order the military to release his client.

To read more about this remarkable military court case, please click on the following link:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/govt-asks-court-reinstate-marines-conviction-19621406 – .UeGbQaUx9SU

If you need criminal defense in civilian or military court, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III, at 401-531-5100 for a free consultation to learn about your options.

A former prosecutor with the U.S. Army JAG Corps and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Calcagni is experienced in the prosecution and defense of all types of criminal cases and provides defense for those accused of federal and or crimes.

As a Military Defense Attorney, John Calcagni, is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as the state and federal courts in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Florida.

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

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Armed Services Committee Endorses Two-Year Mandatory Minimum Sentencing for Military Members Convicted of Sexual Assault.

In response to the recent epidemic of sexual assault cases in the U.S. Military, the U.S. House of Representatives has endorsed a two-year mandatory minimum sentencing law for military members who have been convicted of sexual assault by a military court.

The House Armed Services Committee also recently approved provisions in a Defense bill that included stripping military commanders of the power to overturn convictions in rape and sexual assault cases. The panel also voted to require anyone found guilty of a sex-related crime receive a punishment that includes a dismissal from military service or a dishonorable discharge.

To read more about the proposed two-year mandatory minimum sentencing for military members convicted of sexual assault, click on the following link:

http://triblive.com/usworld/nation/4192950-74/assault-sexual-military – axzz2Yx4H0viF

If you need criminal defense in civilian or military court, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III, at 401-531-5100 for a free consultation to learn about your options.

A former prosecutor with the U.S. Army JAG Corps and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Calcagni is experienced in the prosecution and defense of all types of criminal cases and provides defense for those accused of federal and or crimes.

As a Military Defense Attorney, John Calcagni, is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as the state and federal courts in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Florida.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

When soldiers return home from war to suffer from PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, they are not the only ones to suffer.

According to recent accounts, between 286,000 and 520,000 of the 2.6 million military men and women who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan may be suffering from PTSD. A 2012 Defense Department study found that only 54 percent of service members who screened positive for psychological health needs or traumatic brain injury in post-deployment health assessments went for subsequent treatment.

When PTSD goes untreated, it can lead to a plethora of problems. Failed marriages, suicide attempts, criminal activity and violent behavior are among the many dangerous things that PTSD can lead its sufferers to do. Friends and family members of veterans are often left to try to pick up the pieces of these fractured lives and find psychological or legal assistance.

To read a recent article about the effects of PTSD on one family, click on the following link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/03/military-marriages_n_3511780.html

If you find yourself picking up the pieces from a loved one suffering from PTSD, who may have delved into criminal activity as a result of the disorder, there is special legal assistance waiting for you. If you need or a family member need criminal defense in civilian or military court, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III, at 401-531-5100 for a free consultation to learn about your options.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 , Assault and Battery and all criminal matters.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Suicide Among U.S. Military Veterans

Twenty-two U.S. Military Veterans kill themselves each day, according to recent statistics. 

Many of these suicide victims were sufferers of PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder., a condition brought on by the atrocities of war.

One of these recent victims, Daniel Somers, an Iraq war veteran, left a suicide note, which his family shared with the media in Phoenix, subsequently prompting the suicide letter to spread virally on the internet.

“Too trapped in a war to be at peace, too damaged to be at war,” reads an excerpt from Somers’ letter.

His parents says that this is PTSD speaking, not their son.

Somers was a sergeant in an intelligence unit, where he ran 400 combat missions as a machine gunner in the turret of a Humvee. According to his parents, Howard and Jean Somers, their son was diagnosed with PTSD, a brain injury, Gulf War syndrome, fibromyalgia and a host of other medical problems in 2008, one year after the end of his second deployment.

Sadly, suicide is not the only terrible problem plaguing veterans who return home from combat.

PTSD not only can cause these former soldiers to take their own lives, but to take the lives others, or to behave in other dangerous and criminal ways.

To read more about Sergeant Daniel Somers, click on the following link:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/06/us/soldier-suicide-note/index.html

If you or someone you know suffers from PTSD and as a result, needs criminal defense in civilian or military court, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III, at 401-531-5100 for a free consultation to learn about the options.

A former prosecutor with the U.S. Army JAG Corps and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Calcagni is experienced in the prosecution and defense of all types of criminal cases and provides defense for those accused of federal and or crimes.

As a Military Defense Attorney, John Calcagni, is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as the state and federal courts in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Florida.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Military’s Highest Court Overturns Murder Conviction

The United States Military’s highest court recently overturned a murder conviction against a Camp Pendleton Marine in one of the most significant cases against American troops from the Iraq war. The court’s decision is seen as a major accomplishment for military criminal defenders of soldiers accused of committing Iraqi war crimes.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces threw out the conviction of Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III of Plymouth, Mass., who has served about half of his 11-year sentence. Sgt. Hutchins was part of an eight-man squad who was accused of kidnapping an Iraqi man from his home, marching him into a ditch and then shooting him to death in 2006.

To read the details of Hutchins’ overturned conviction, click on the following link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/lawrence-hutchins-iii_n_3506506.html

If you need criminal defense in civilian or military court, call the Law Offices of John L. Calcagni, III, at 401-531-5100 for a free consultation to learn about your options.

A former prosecutor with the U.S. Army JAG Corps and a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, John Calcagni is experienced in the prosecution and defense of all types of criminal cases and provides defense for those accused of federal and or crimes.

As a Military Defense Attorney, John Calcagni, is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as the state and federal courts in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and Florida.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Court-Martial Testimonial

Testimonial from Spouse of Marine:

“Words cannot express how grateful I am to Attorney John Calcagni. He helped my husband and our family this past year by defending a complicated court-martial brought by the U.S. Marine Corps. John not only helped my husband with fighting many of the false charges against him, but he is the one and only reason my husband is home with our family and not in the brig right now.

John is also the one and only reason my husband, who pleaded guilty at court-martial, is still leaving the Marines with an Honorable Discharge, his Sergeant rank and so much more to include a medical retirement. John is very honest and professional. As busy as he is, he was always there to talk with my husband and I if needed. He returned every call, text and email quickly. John stayed on top of everything leaving little stress on me, my husband or our family. I was pregnant during much of the court-martial process. John always emphasized that he did not want me to not stress at all. His compassion for our situation really meant a lot to me. It was clear to me that John cares so much not only for the welfare of the person he is defending, but also for the family involved. He is not only a great lawyer but a great person with a big heart.

Attorney Calcagni definitely went above and beyond of our expectations. I would HIGHLY recommend Attorney John Calcagni to anyone! Thank you so much John for everything!”

Mrs. S.G., beloved wife of a U.S. Marine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 , Assault and Battery and all criminal matters.

As a Criminal and Military Defense Attorney and former prosecutor with the US Army JAG Corps, John Calcagni, is admitted to practice in the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals, as well as the state and federal courts in Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut, Florida and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Please call (401) 351-5100 to arrange for a free consultation about your case or visit our website at www,CalcagniLaw.com

If you cannot make it to one of our offices, we will to come to your home or detention center.

Exceptions and Substitutions Plea in Manning Case

Bradley Manning, who stands accused of 22 military criminal charges, has offered a partial guilty plea and is awaiting the decision from the pre-trial hearing judge. The full article follows below.

If you are a United States service-member in need of assistance with a civilian or a military criminal matter, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information. Remember to subscribe to my blog for updates on military and criminal law matters.

Bradley Manning offers partial guilty plea to military court

Alleged Wiki-leaker's attorney says, however, that the offer applies to only "a subset of" the offenses. That means the February 2013 court-martial will proceed.

 Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army soldier accused of providing WikiLeaks with hundreds of thousands of classified documents, has offered to plead guilty. Sort of.

During a pre-trial hearing in military court today, Manning's attorney, David Coombs, proposed a partial guilty plea covering a subset of the slew of criminal charges that the U.S. Army has lodged against him.

"Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses," Coombs wrote on his blog this evening. "The court will consider whether this is a permissible plea."

Coombs stressed that Manning's offer has to be accepted by the court -- it's not final until it is -- and is not part of any "an agreement or deal" with prosecutors.

Manning's court-martial is set to begin in February 2013. Last year, the military slapped him with 22 charges, including alleging that Manning caused "to be published on the Internet intelligence belonging to the United States government."

WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said last month in an appearance from Ecuador's London embassy that prosecutors want Manning to identify him as another guilty party.

The Army wants, Assange said from his embassy room where he sought refuge to avoid an extradition attempt, "to break him, to force him to testify against WikiLeaks and me" -- an apparent reference to the Justice Department's investigation taking place in conjunction with a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va. If prosecutors can allege conspiracy to commit computer crimes, they would avoid some of the free speech problems they'd face in an Espionage Act prosecution.

Blogger Kevin Gosztola, who attended the Fort Meade, Md. hearing today, wrote that Manning would admit he provided the data to WikiLeaks. In other words, Gosztola wrote, "he can plead guilty without accepting the government's charge that he aided the enemy' or 'exceeded authorized access' on his computer."

The military's 2012 Manual for Courts-Martial (PDF) allows defendants to offer hybrid pleas to judges, including "not guilty to an offense as charged, but guilty of a named lesser included offense" and "not guilty of the exceptions, but guilty of the substitutions."

Exceptions-and-substitutions aren't unusual in military court. The U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals decided a case in June in which an airman first class was convicted of using of cocaine and other drugs, jailed, and then dishonorably discharged. In that case, the defendant pleaded guilty by "exceptions and substitutions" by excepting the drug Percocet and substituting the drug Vicodin.

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

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.

Bradley Manning's Defense Attorney Makes Statement

While a Military Attorney will be provided for you in most situations, it can be in your best interest to hire a civilian military defense attorney. If you would like more information about a Military Criminal Defense matter contact Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation.

In his first public statement regarding his client Bradley Manning, Defense Attorney David Coombs criticizes the military for their extreme and harsh treatment of Manning during the nine months he was held, "against the advice of doctors", under a "suicide prevention regime".

Coombs' current motion to dismiss the charges against Manning based upon these conditions is still being argued.

Read more HERE



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

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.

Former Deputy Commander Sentenced in Sexual Assault Case

If you are a United States service-member in need of assistance with a civilian or a military criminal matter, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information. Remember to subscribe to my blog for updates on military and criminal law matters.


Former B.C. cadet instructor jailed, banned from military for sex assault

A military court has sentenced a former deputy commander of the Victoria-based military cadet corps to one year in jail and banished him from the military for sexually abusing teenaged cadets.

Captain Daniel Moriarity, 26, was also demoted to a second lieutenant by military Judge Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Vincent D’Auteuil, who said the man used and abused his power to fulfill his desires.

Capt. Moriarity was convicted of sexual exploitation, sexual assault and sexual interference by a military court last October in connection with attacks on a 15-year-old boy and 16-year-old girl in separate incidents at the Vernon, B.C., army camp.

During Capt. Moriarity’s sentencing on Wednesday, the judge said the victims are still emotionally dealing with the man’s actions.

Read more HERE


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

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.

New Military Issues Under President Re-Elect Obama

With Barack Obama's victory comes some important possible changes to the military that may or may not have an effect on you as a service member or veteran. The President plans to cut close to $500 billion in spending over the next ten years, and intends to pursue a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014.

The President also plans to keep a strong vigil on seeing an end to DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). In overturning this act, he further hopes to open services that have previously been reserved for heterosexual couples such as access to health care and Veterans' benefits, to homosexual couples as well.

As a veteran, you may look forward to increased access to housing, better mental health services, health care, and other veteran benefits. A proposed plan would employ more qualified mental health professionals and help alleviate the staggering unemployment faced by many veterans returning to civilian life.

If you would like more detailed information about the changes that may occur under President Obama's plan, the original article located HERE has more information.

If you are a service member who needs assistance with a military criminal defense matter in RI, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information.

Military Suicide Statute Gets Reviewed

As the suicide rate climbs among American service members, a decades-old statute that makes attempted suicide a military crime will be reconsidered for the first time since 1991 "when it was upheld". The statute was instituted during World War II as a way to deter troops who faked their suicides as a means to avoid duty.

A current case involving a former Marine who received a bad-conduct discharge as well as 180 days in the brig for his actual suicide attempt is being heard to determine the relevance of the old law when applied to the current military climate and the issue of deteriorating mental health among soldiers.

Defense lawyers in the case will seek to have the bad-conduct discharge dropped as the ruling prevents the individual from receiving mental health and other veterans benefits necessary to his recovery.

If you or someone you know needs help with a Military Criminal Defense issue, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information.

To read the original article with the details of this case, click HERE

Military Justice System and Civilian Victims

If you are a United States service-member in need of assistance with a civilian or a military criminal matter, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information. Remember to subscribe to my blog for updates on military and criminal law matters.

Afghan massacre case tests military justice system on troops accused of killing civilians

JOINT BASE LEWIS-McCHORD, Wash. — The U.S. military has been criticized for its spotty record on convicting troops of killing civilians, but a hearing against Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales involving a massacre in Afghanistan has shown that it isn’t like most cases.

Government prosecutors have built a strong eyewitness case against the veteran soldier, with troops recounting how they saw Bales return to the base covered in blood. And in unusual testimony in a military court, Afghan civilians questioned via a video link described the horror of seeing 16 people killed, mostly children, in their villages.

Law experts say the case could test whether the military, aided by technology, is able to embark on a new era of accountability.

Bales faces 16 counts of premeditated murder and six counts of attempted murder. The preliminary hearing, which began Nov. 5 and is scheduled to end with closing arguments Tuesday, will determine whether he faces a court-martial. He could face the death penalty if convicted.

Read the full article HERE

Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Enjoys Immunity in Torture Claim by American Civilians

A recent decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals seems to give "blanket immunity on all levels of military command up to the defense secretary" for the misuse of their training and power by those in the field.

Two American civilians who were working for an Iraqi-owned company suspected the company was illegally running guns. When they reported this situation to U.S. forces in Iraq, they were detained and tortured for several weeks while being held in military camps. When these men brought a lawsuit against former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, arguing that he was responsible for the behavior of the men under him, they were initially allowed to pursue the suit by a "three judge panel of the same court."

Although the attorney for the civilians feels that it could be an eventual Supreme Court issue, his clients have not decided whether to pursue it at this time.

If you would like to read the article in its entirety, including the opinions of Rumsfeld's attorney and the Judges involved, you may do so by clicking HERE

If you are a United States service-member in need of assistance with a civilian or a military criminal matter, contact Criminal Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for a free consultation or more information.

Military Sex Crimes - "U.S. Army General Begins Hearing"

In a rare military sex crime allegation against a U.S. Army General, Fort Bragg officials convened this week for the Article 32 hearing that will determine whether a court martial will convene against the General.

The investigation was initiated by Maj. Gen. James Huggins, a personal friend of Gen. Sinclair who is also Huggins' deputy commander, after the female officer came to him to discuss the situation and events involving Gen. Sinclair and herself.

Gen. Sinclair will possible face a court martial for charges ranging from wrongful sexual conduct, violating order, engaging in inappropriate relationships, forcible sodomy, adultery, and others. While the female officer, who was described by Gen. Huggins as being "exceptionally emotional, fearful" may also see an end to her military career.

If you would like to read the entire article, you may do so HERE

If you are in danger of facing Court Martial or other criminal charge as a service member yourself, you will need an experienced Military Defense Attorney to help you. Contact John L. Calcagni now at (401) 351-5100 for more information.

Former Army Medic “Pleads Guilty in Militia Case”

If you have been accused of a Military Crime, you need a Defense Attorney with experience handling Military Crimes, Courts Martial Defense, and Administrative Board Hearings. Contact Military Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 for a consultation now.

Former soldier pleads guilty in militia case

By Russ Bynum - The Associated Press
HINESVILLE, Ga. — A former Army medic pleaded guilty Monday to charges that he burned bloody clothes, spent shotgun shells and a cellphone to try to help fellow soldiers cover up a double killing that prosecutors say was linked to a militia group plotting terrorist attacks while operating inside the military at Fort Stewart in southeast Georgia.

Former Pfc. Christopher Jenderseck of Fargo, N.D., told a Liberty County Superior Court judge that he built the backyard bonfire used to dispose of the items last December. He said none of his fellow soldiers told him that he was destroying evidence to cover up a killing, though he figured it out as the fire burned. Still, Jenderseck admitted, he did nothing to stop them.

Read more HERE

U.S. Soldier at Trial by Court-Martial in Afghanistan Case Result by Attorney Calcagni

Attorney Calcagni is a criminal defense attorney representing clients in State, Federal and Military Courts.  As former active duty U.S. Army Judge Advocate or military prosecutor, he employs the unique investigative and courtroom advocacy skills he acquired prosecuting Soldiers to now defend them in the military justice system.

The military justice system is a world-wide legal system.  It is so expansive because Soldiers and other service members who are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) are stationed around the world throughout the United States and abroad.  They also serve in both friendly and hostile environments. 

When Soldiers or service members commit criminal acts regardless of their location, the military justice system must be available to adjudicate criminal charges in a manner that does not interrupt or interfere with military operations and missions.  This is done through the world wide application of the military justice system and the military’s ability to prosecute crimes anywhere and anytime.  This is accomplished by convening trial by courts-martial and the availability of military judges, prosecutors and defense counsel to participate in these proceedings wherever they may be conducted.

Contrary to public belief or opinion, the military tries criminal cases in deployed environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan.  When a Soldier or service member commits an offense while deployed, the evidence of the crime, along with the witnesses and law enforcement agents who investigated the offense(s) are also located in the deployed environment or theater of operations. 

Military attorneys or Judge Advocates who prosecute these offenses are stationed there as well.  The military is a self-sustaining organization that deploys with it all internal services to include not only war fighters and combat support troops, but also other Soldiers who provide professional services such as doctors, dentists, and yes, prosecuting attorneys and criminal investigators.  For these reasons, instead of interrupting essential mission operations by sending criminal offenders and related evidence and witnesses from the deployed environment back to the United States for trial, the military often prosecutes offenses that occur on deployments right in theater.

As a former military prosecutor, Attorney Calcagni was deployed to Afghanistan where he prosecuted a wide array of offenses.  Now, as a civilian defense attorney who focuses his practice on defending Soldiers and service members who defend America, he provides criminal defense representation at trials by court-martial on a worldwide basis.  Most recently, he traveled to Afghanistan to represent a U.S. Soldier facing trial by court-martial for multiple offenses to include drug use, violating orders against the possession and consumption of alcohol while in a combat zone, and providing a false official statement to law enforcement agents.

Attorney Calcagni’s client was a Sergeant (E-5) assigned as a Team Leader in an Infantry rifle platoon (hereinafter “Accused”).  The Soldier and his platoon were stationed at a remote Combat Outpost (COP) working side by side with Soldiers of the Afghan National Army (ANA).  The COP is located close to the Pakistani border and surrounded by local Afghan inhabitants in villages that are infiltrated by enemy Taliban forces.  The COP is frequently attacked by enemy small arms and indirect fires.  It is highly fortified with multiple battle positions and occupied by numerous infantrymen. The Accused was assigned as a Fire Team Leader assigned to this COP.  He worked with and had several junior Soldiers under his authority and in his fire team.

The Accused was charged with smoking hashish and distributing it to his fellow Soldiers, most of whom were junior in rank to him.  Once questioned by law enforcement authorities, the Accused admitted to acquiring the hashish from members of the ANA.  Sometimes he purchased the hashish from the ANA and other times he acquired it from them as a gift. 

The Accused admitted to smoking the hashish on multiple occasions including when on important guard duty at the COP.  He also admitted to sharing it with the other Soldiers and smoking it with them on multiple occasions, to include guard duty.   When questioned further about his involvement in misconduct, the Accused confessed to unlawfully receiving through the mail and consuming alcohol. 

While deployed, U.S. Soldiers are precluded from, among other things, possessing and/or consuming alcohol.  Rather than destroy or turn in the alcohol received, the Accused admitted to consuming it.  Military criminal investigators questioned the Accused about other Soldiers’ hashish use.  In effort to protect his friend and fellow young Soldier from getting into trouble for unlawful drug use, the Accused lied that he had not witnessed suspected hashish use by another Soldier under investigation. 

Later, however, in a subsequent statement, the Accused came clean about his false statement to investigators and confirmed their suspicion that the suspected Soldier had in fact smoked hashish.  As a result of his admitted misconduct and other supporting evidence, such as positive urinalysis results for hashish use and corroborating statements by the Accused’s co-accuseds, he was criminally charged.

The Accused was charged with three offenses: (1) Wrongful hashish use in violation of Article 112a, UCMJ; (2) Providing a False Official Statement in violation of Article 107, UMCJ; and (3) Failure to Obey a Lawful General Order, namely, General Order Number 1 (GO-1) for wrongfully consuming alcohol in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. 

These charges were referred for trial to a Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge.   The Accused faced a maximum potential punishment of one year or twelve (12) months in jail; reduction in rank from Sergeant to Private (E-1); forfeiture of two-third of pay for twelve (12) months; and to be discharged from the service with a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) or punitive discharge. 

After being formally charged with these offenses, the Accused and his family made the important decision to hire Attorney Calcagni for criminal defense or military defense representation in this matter.
   
The case proceeded to trial in Afghanistan at Bagram Airfield (BAF).  The Accused opted to plead guilty to the charges.  When an Accused is charged with a crime regardless of severity, there are only three possible outcomes of a criminal charge: (1) dismissal of the charge for insufficient evidence or some egregious procedural or constitutional violation; (2) proceed to trial where a judge or panel (i.e. jury) determines guilty of innocence; or (3) plead guilty and accept responsibility. 

In this case, because the evidence against the Accused was overwhelming, to include his confessions to military investigators and corroborating urinalysis results and statements of co-accuseds, he determined it was in his best interest to plead guilty before a military judge alone, and thereafter, fight for lenience at the time of sentencing.  Based on this decision,  Attorney Calcagni negotiated a pretrial agreement for the Accused that provided for a sentencing cap of five (5) months of confinement. 

Unlike civilian courts, in the military justice system, the prosecution and defense do not normally agree on a sentence incident to a guilty plea or part of a pretrial agreement.  Rather, the Convening Authority or General Officer who decided to send the case to a court-martial normally, in exchange for an accused’s promise to plead guilty, offers to limit the nature or extent of sentence that he approves following the court-martial.  At the time of sentencing, the military judge imposes punishment. 

Depending upon the adjudged punishment, the accused gets the benefit of the lesser sentence: that imposed by the court or that agreed to with the Convening Authority.  In this case, Attorney Calcagni negotiated on the Accused’s behalf that the Convening Authority, regardless of the sentence imposed by the military judge, would not approve any sentence of confinement in excess of five (5) months.

The pretrial agreement allowed the imposition of all other lawful forms of punishment to include a punitive or Bad Conduct Discharge.
   
Once the pretrial agreement was in place, Attorney Calcagni shifted his focus to preparing for the Accused’s guilty plea and most importantly, sentencing hearing that proceeds to guilty plea phase o the court-martial. 

Attorney Calcagni spoke with and interviewed countless friends, family members and other supporters of the Accused. He also interviewed Soldiers with whom the Accused formerly served such as members of the 10th Mountain Division where Attorney Calcagni previously served on active duty when assigned as a military prosecutor or trial counsel. 

Attorney Calcagni worked with nearly three dozen supporters to draft character letters or statements of support on the Accused’s behalf for the military judge’s consideration at the time of sentencing.  Attorney Calcagni also compiled volumes of records such as his client’s education records, medical records, mental health treatment records, substance abuse treatment records, and others related documents.  He also received and reviewed photographs of the Accused’s family who could not attend the court-martial in Afghanistan.  These materials were all consolidated into one packet known as a “Good Soldier Book” for submission to the Court at the court-martial.

Attorney Calcagni interviewed a number of witnesses whose testimony he sought to present at the court-martial.  These witnesses included Soldiers with whom the Accused served at the COP; a Platoon Sergeant whose life the Soldier saved during a recent attack by a rogue ANA Soldier on U.S. Soldiers; and a behavioral health provider with whom the Accused had self-referred for mental health counseling and substance abuse treatment. 

Attorney Calcagni actually presented some of these witnesses live at the Accused court-martial and others’ testimony he presented in the form of what is known as either a stipulation of fact or stipulation of expected testimony. The Accused’s court-martial commenced with the providence or guilty plea inquiry, which is the first phase of the proceeding.  The military judge accepted the Accused’s plea without incident.  Thereafter, the military judge moved onto the second phase of the proceeding and conducted a sentencing hearing. 

The government went first by presenting the testimony of two witnesses: the Accused’s Squad Leader at the time of the misconduct and his Acting Platoon Sergeant from this period.  Both witnesses testified about their disappointment in the Accused and how his misconduct affected the mission and security on the COB. Both Non-Commissioned Officers held the Accused accountable for influencing five (5) other junior Soldiers to smoke hash, all of whom had been criminally charged separately, and along with the Accused, removed from the COP and sent back to the rear for criminal prosecution. The witnesses also testified that this loss in man power of six Soldiers, to include the Accused, increased the workload of the remaining Soldiers on the COP. 

The witnesses opined that the Accused’s actions had caused him to fail himself, subordinates and leaders as an assigned Team Leader and fellow Sergeant or Non-Commissioned Officer.  On cross-examination, each witness admitted during Attorney Calcagni’s questioning that the Accused was an extraordinary Soldier who tactically proficient, a natural born leader, respected by all and reliable in all aspects of combat operations. 

The Acting Platoon Sergeant specifically said that if bullets were flying, the Accused was the Soldier he wanted beside him.  He further testified that the Accused was the type of Soldier who, if a grenade had been tossed in their direction, would be the first person to jump on it in order to save his comrades from harm or injury.  The government rested its sentencing case after these two witnesses testified.

Attorney Calcagni then presented the defense sentencing case.  This began with the offering o the Accused’s Good Soldier Book, which contained countless statements of support, to include one from the former the Accused’s former Platoon Sergeant whose life he saved during the rogue ANA attack; another from a Soldier who the Accused saved on a prior deployment to Afghanistan after he stepped on a victim-detonated improvised explosive device (IED) that caused loss of his leg; and another from the Accused’s former Team Leader with whom he served and who had had also saved in Iraq.  The packet also contained copies of the Accused’s military awards; education transcripts; and numerous photos of the Accused, his family and friends.

Attorney Calcagni also presented video footage documenting his client’s combat experiences while deployed.  The instant deployment was the Accused’s third overall deployment and second time deployed to Afghanistan.  A Dan Rathers Report video existed documenting the Accused’s first tour to Afghanistan where he participated in daily combat patrols in Afghanistan’s Kandahar and southern provinces directly fighting the Taliban. 

The defense also submitted an article documenting the recent suicides of a fellow Soldier with whom the Accused was friendly and who was prevented from deploying for mental health issues, and the obituary of the Accused’s childhood friend who also committed suicide during this deployment.
Attorney Calcagni offered two stipulations of fact to the Court.  The first stipulation documented the Accused’s self-referral for behavioral health counseling and alcohol anonymous meetings since being criminally charged.  The second stipulation documented the case dispositions for his co-accuseds.   
Two of the co-accuseds’ cases were also referred to trial by Special Court-Martial empowered to adjudge a Bad Conduct Discharge, which sentenced each of them to a reduction in rank and four (4) months of confinement.  Two of the co-accuseds were not prosecuted via court-martial, but instead received non-judicial punishment in accordance with Article 15, UCMJ. 

The last of the co-accused referred for trial by Summary Court-Martial and subsequently would be administratively separated from the Army with an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge or characterization in service. 

Attorney Calcagni also presented three (3) stipulations of expected testimony.  These witnesses were unable to testify live at the court-martial in Afghanistan.  As a result, the parties agreed to what their testimony would otherwise be had they appeared in person.  Two of these witnesses were the co-accused – two junior Soldiers with whom he had smoked the hashish. 

Each testified that they were not influenced or encouraged by the Accused in any way to smoke hashish.  They made this decision voluntarily and of their own volition.  The defense offered this evidence to refute arguments and allegations by the government that the Accused was responsible for his junior co-accused’s misconduct.

The third and last witness who testified by stipulation of expected testimony was a former member of the Accused’s team back in garrison.  This witness testified of his prior struggle with drug addiction for which he self-referred to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP).  The former addict credited the Accused for giving him the encouragement and motivation to complete ASAP.  He also credited the Accused for mentoring him to remain in the U.S. Army and pushing him to excel and pursue greater positions within the Army, which later resulted in his promotion to Team Leader.

The defense then presented the testimony of four live witnesses: two of the Accused’s former Squad Leaders under whom had served as a Team Leader and his most recent first-line supervisor with whom he worked after removal from the COP.  All of these witnesses provided astounding testimony on the Accused’s behalf.  Attorney Calcagni interviewed each of them beforehand to ascertain their experiences, observations and opinions of the Accused.

All three witnesses said that regardless of the Accused’s admitted misconduct, they would gladly serve with him again.  They all believed the Accused made a mistake, but was capable of rebounding from his lapse in judgment and with the right guidance and mentorship, could meaningfully serve in the Army again. 

The former Squad Leaders provided testimony that the Accused was an extremely knowledgeable Soldier who was tactically sound, an expert in the field, and a natural born leader.  They each also testified that he was autonomous, trustworthy and had great duty performance.  One former Squad Leader said he would give the shirt off of his back for the Accused.  The other credited the Accused for his squad having received awards and accolades for combat related training exercises prior to the deployment. 

The third witness, the Accused’s current first line supervisor, had only known him for about one month.  However, during his time, the Accused had made a strong first impression by his work ethic, commitment to duty, professionalism and reliability. 

Because of this, the witness chose the Accused to participate in three fallen comrade ceremonies and what are known as “hero flights“ where the military provides final honors to fallen comrades whose remains are being returned to their families for burial services.  This witness also told the Court that he was personally acquainted with other Soldiers who had overcome drug addictions and remain in service today.  The first line supervisor testified that he believed the Accused would do the same. 

The defense lastly presented the Accused’s testimony.  He testified on his own behalf about a multitude of extenuating and mitigating factors.  He informed the Court that he had come from a broken home where his parents had divorced at a young age.  He also relayed his family background to include his numerous siblings and stepsiblings, one of whom was a victim during the infamous Columbine High School shooting. 

The Accused talked about his friend and former Soldier, both of who had committed suicide during this deployment.  He also talked about personal circumstances such as a prior girlfriend whom he had impregnated and who gave up the child for adoption without his consent or knowledge.  He even mentioned his fiancé, for unknown reasons and without warning, had broken off their relationship in the weeks leading up to his court-martial. 

The most moving testimony by the Accused related to his military service.  He detailed his experienced from three separate deployments all which were rife with enemy engagements and the horrific faces of war such as death and dismemberment.  The Accused talked about the enemy lives he had taken, the friendly lives that were lost, and his acts of valor and heroism throughout it all.  He ended by offering a sincere apology to the Court and all others present for his actions.  The defense then rested its sentencing case.

The government sought to offer rebuttal evidence.  However, each of the prosecutor’s attempts to offer rebuttal was defeated by Attorney Calcagni’s objections. In the end, the parties presented their competing sentencing arguments.  The government argued for a sentence of nine (9) months of confinement, reduction to the grade of Private (E-1) and a Bad Conduct Discharge.  In support of this request, the prosecutor emphasized the accused’s misconduct while in a leadership position, influential of junior Soldiers who committed similar misconduct with the Accused’s knowledge and participation, all the while conducted in the face of enemy danger while stationed at a hostile, remote Combat Out Post. 

The defense retorted that the government’s sentencing request devalued and disregarded the extent and quality of the Accused’s military service, most of which was spent conducting combat operations.  Attorney Calcagni argued that his client was a silent casualty of armed conflict who bore invisible wounds and scars from the things he had done, places he has gone and wartime experiences endured. 

He emphasized to the Court that until you have carried a rife on patrol in enemy territory, taken the life of another, and had a comrade’s blood on your hands, we could not begin to understand and appreciate the depth of the Accused’s military service.  In closing, Attorney Calcagni agreed that a reduction in rank was warranted by the nature and circumstances of the admitted misconduct, but that a punitive discharge could not be imposed.

After approximately one hour of deliberations, the military judge delivered his sentence.  He adjudged a reduction to the rank of Private (E-1) and imposed 180 days of confinement.  The Court did not impose a punitive discharge.  Because of the pretrial agreement, however, the Accused’s confinement was limited to five (5) months.  The Court also awarded the Accused’s eleven (11) days of jail credit for unlawful pretrial punishment agreed to by the parties.  With good time and other sentencing credit, the Accused will spend approximately 100 days in confinement.  Thereafter, unless administratively separated from service, he will return to his unit since the Court did not impose a Bad Conduct Discharge.  Congratulations to this Accused and notable war veteran.

United States Military Academy (USMA) Cadet Sexual Assault Case Results

United States Military Academy (USMA) Cadet Charged with Sexual Assault: Not Guilty of a Sex Offense and Retained for Further Military Service.

The government charged a third-year student or Yearling at the United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, New York, with multiple charges of sexual assault against a fellow cadet.  These charges were referred for trial by General Court-Martial.  The accused cadet offered to plead guilty to the lesser included, non-sex offense of Assault Consummated by Battery.  A military judge accepted this plea, and after a sentencing hearing, ordered that the cadet receive a written reprimand, but no further punishment.

The third-year cadet (hereinafter “the accused”) was alleged to have sexually assaulted another female cadet while on a class field trip.  The two cadets sat next to each other in the back row of a 12-passenger van.  The van was otherwise full of West Point Cadets and operated by a faculty member.  The two cadets, the accused and the victim, were no more than classmates and had only known each other for the academic semester.  They had no prior friendship or romantic relationship.  They also had never socialized outside of the classroom.  All of their interaction and communication was professional in nature and centered on their class.  On the date in question, the class to which they belonged took a day-long field trip from the West Point military academy to a nearby Buddhist monastery.  The accused and victim sat next to one another in the back row of the van both on the way to the monastery and on the return trip back to the academy.

All personnel on the van were asleep during the return trip except the driver and the accused.  The victim and accused sat next to one another in the rear of the van.  The accused sat to the left of the victim and closest to the window.  The victim, who was asleep, sat to the accused’s right.  Next to the victim, on her right, sat another female cadet who was also asleep.  The victim alleges that she woke up to find the accused’s hand inside the back pocket of her pants and caressing her buttocks.  She shifted her body away from him and towards the female cadet sleeping to her right without opening her eyes or saying a word.  She then alleged that she felt the accused’s hand caress her inner thigh.  In response, she sat up straight, but again did not open her eyes or say a word.  Lastly, she alleged that the accused attempted to place his hand in hers, but that she pulled her hand away.  After the van returned to the academy, the cadets parted ways without exchanging any words.

In the following days, the accused sent three separate emails to the victim.  In each message, he apologized for his conduct and sought the chance to apologize to her in person.  She never replied.  The accused also left a voice message on the victim’s cell phone, also seeking the chance to apologize in person; however, she never returned his call.  The victim reported what occurred on the van, as well as the accused’s follow-up communications, to her chain of command, an Army chaplain, and the Army Criminal Investigation Division (CID).  As a result, an investigation ensued.  Thereafter, the government charged the accused with three separate counts of Sexual Assault and referred these charges for trial by General Court-Martial.

The accused and his family hired experienced military Defense attorney, John L. Calcagni III, for representation in this unfortunate event.  Attorney Calcagni began his representation of the accused by acquiring and analyzing the strength of the government’s evidence against him.  The evidence consisted of the victim’s timely reports to the chaplain, chain of command, and CID; the accused’s admissions in his emails and voicemail to the victim; and an overall lack of motive or reason to fabricate by the victim.   After conducting a thorough review, Attorney Calcagni advised his client to enter into a plea agreement with the government, opposed to proceeding to a contested trial before either a military panel or a military judge.

Attorney Calcagni, with the accused’s permission, negotiated with the government regarding the terms of a pretrial agreement.  He successfully persuaded the government to agree to allow the accused to avoid a conviction of a sex offense.  Sex offense convictions and their resulting registration requirement are considered lifelong stigmas from which offenders are prejudiced and discriminated against by society.  Because of this, Attorney Calcagni’s primary objective, at the outset of his representation, was for his client to avoid a criminal conviction for a sex offense.  Attorney Calcagni convinced the government to allow the accused to plead guilty to the lesser included, non-sex offense, of Assault Consummated by Battery.  He also convinced the government that no matter the sentence to be imposed after trial, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority would not approve or impose a sentence against the accused, as it relates to confinement, in excess of ninety (90) days.  This agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the parties.

With a pretrial agreement in place, Attorney Calcagni’s next objective was to prepare a sentencing case on his client’s behalf that would place him in the best possible position to avoid jail and a punitive discharge (i.e. dismissal) from USMA, the U.S. Army and further military service.  Attorney Calcagni worked with his client to interview dozens of the accused’s supporters to include family members, many of whom were military service members; faculty members; fellow cadets, civilian friends; and the accused’s counselor to whom he self-referred for therapy following the assault.  Attorney Calcagni also traveled to West Virginia to spend time with and interview the accused’s family; to see where the accused lived and was raised; and to acquire other sentencing evidence.

Attorney Calcagni encountered a lot of love and compassion for the accused from all of his supports who were both males and females alike.  With the assistance of the accused and his many supporters, Attorney Calcagni assembled a large collection of sentencing evidence, which he compiled into a book or pamphlet known as a “Good Soldier Packet” for presentation to the Court.  The accused’s Good Solder Packet included statements of support; academic information, which showed the accused’s top performance and class rank (6 / 248) in high school; Dean’s List performance at USMA; and Commandant’s List at the United States Military Academy Prepatory School (USMAPS); military performance such as being the distinguished graduate at U.S. Army Basic Training and USMAPS; his counseling attendance; military awards; photographs; and other information.

On the day of the court-martial, which was before a military judge alone, the proceedings began with the guilt phase of the case of the proceedings.  The accused pleaded guilty to Assault Consummated by Battery without incident.  The military judge accepted his plea and proceeded to a sentencing hearing.

At a sentencing hearing, the government is allowed to first present evidence of aggravation regarding the accused’s offenses.  The Defense is allowed to challenge and rebut this evidence, as well as cross-examine government witnesses.  Once the government concludes it presentation of evidence, the Defense is then afforded the chance to offer evidence of extenuation and mitigation regarding the accused in general, as well as his offenses.  The government is allowed to challenge the Defense evidence and cross-examine witnesses.  Once the parties conclude their respective presentations of evidence, each side is allowed to make a sentencing argument to the Court.

In this case, as in all sentencing cases, the government began with its case of aggravation, which was comprised of two witnesses: the accused’s tactical officer or supervisor and the victim, both of whom Attorney Calcagni cross-examined.  The government first presented the supervisor who testified very briefly that in his opinion the accused’s military service had been poor.  On cross-examination by Attorney Calcagni, the supervisor admitted that he was unfamiliar with: the accused’s exceptional academic record and performance; the military awards he had received, to include Air Assault School and the German Proficiency Badge, both which the accused earned in the same summer; and his placement as distinguished honor graduate of both basic training and USMAPS.  The supervisor further admitted that most of his interactions with the accused involved the pending court-martial, which formed the basis of his biased opinion.

Next, the government presented the victim who testified about how the accused’s actions impacted her life.  She testified that as a result of his actions, she could no longer trust others to include men and fellow cadets.  She also testified how her intimate life with her fiancé had been destroyed, and that all aspects of her cadet life were adversely affected to include academics, leadership and athletics.  Attorney Calcagni cross-examined her to confirm that she never set verbal or physical boundaries for the accused after discovering his hand on her body; never replied to any of his apologies; had successfully graduated West Point since the incident, and even participated in competitive athletic events during the weekend of the assault; and lastly, that she found the accused’s personality to be quirky and nerdy.  The government offered no further evidence in aggravation.

Attorney Calcagni, on behalf of the accused, then presented the Defense case of extenuation and mitigation.  The Defense case consisted of a Good Soldier Packet, which is described above, and the testimony of six witnesses:  the accused’s father, a U.S. Army Sergeant First Class; the accused’s mother, a former Soldier; the accused’s sister, a U.S. Army Captain and West Point graduate; two field grade female officer faculty members from West Point; and the accused himself.  In essence, the family witnesses all testified that the accused was someone who embodied the Army Values, and had so embodied them long before joining the Army or attending West Point.  The witnesses also testified to the accused’s lifelong goal of joining the Army, which began when he was in junior high school, and later materialized with him enlisting and attending basic training as a high school student, and later matriculating at USMAPS and USMA. 

These witnesses all testified that the accused, though 20 years-old, have never had a girlfriend and had never been romantically, sexually or intimately involved with a woman.  The field grade officer, female faculty members described the accused as the consummate gentleman, but somewhat immature in terms of male-female relations.  Everyone testified that the accused made a serious mistake or lapse in judgment from which he had learned a great deal and had and had grown stronger.  They also opined that despite this sole instance of misconduct, the accused had the potential to still make an exceptional military officer if retained in the Army and at USMA.  The accused echoed the testimony of his witnesses and made an oral apology in open court to both the victim and all others whose lives were impacted by this case.  After the accused testified, the Defense concluded its case of extenuation and mitigation.

After the presentation of evidence, both parties presented argument and sentencing recommendations to the Court.  The government argued for a sentence consisting of six months of confinement and a dismissal from the U.S. Army and academy.  Attorney Calcagni artfully rebutted this argument and asked, in the alternative, for a written reprimand, but no jail or dismissal.  The Court then closed for deliberations.  The military judge returned nearly one and one-half hours later with her verdict and sentenced the accused to be reprimanded only – the sentence recommended by and argued for by Attorney Calcagni.  The military judge did not impose any confinement or a dismissal.  This outstanding result is considered a victory for the Defense.  Congratulations to this fine cadet and best of luck to him throughout his military career.

ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) Disenrollment

 

Entering into any branch of the United States military is a long-term career choice for many people due to the wide variety of career fields to explore. This means that in some cases, the United States government will provide scholarships via the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) for those entering into officer ranks. One aspect of ROTC enrollment that many prospective officers are not aware of are the many consequences for failure.

Active-Duty members of the armed forces enrolled in ROTC may face "disenrollment" for poor academic performance, misconduct, and any other honor code violations. The most common violation is academic failure which may result in the student owing the cost of the education in full. While each branch of military handles the process its own way, they all require an investigation into the failure or misconduct and allow the cadet to challenge his or her disenrollment through restricted hearing procedures.

If you or someone you know needs help with a military criminal matter, contact Military Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for a free consultation and more information.

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.

ABCMR (Army Board for Correction of Military Records)

 

As a member of any of the United States military branches, your military record has a powerful influence on the rest of your life should you choose to become a civilian once again. In most situations, previously active-duty military personnel are honorably discharged without incident, however there are times in which mistakes are made either by the individual, or the branch of service for which he or she serves. When this occurs, the end result is a mark on your military record that may or may not hinder other areas of your life, depending on the seriousness of the infraction.

Your military record

Your military record is essentially the same as your civilian record. It is a series of documented events that reflect your character and used to determine whether or not you are a suitable candidate for a myriad of different positions, especially in regard to employment. Mistakes on your military record can be made relatively easily, sometimes due to simple errors, and occasionally as the result of a wrongful conviction after a Court Martial. It is possible that you were accused and convicted of a crime you did not commit and may have something on your record that should not be there. The end result is simply a mark against you, which will undoubtedly challenge your ability to demonstrate your qualifications based on your military history.

Addressing the ABCMR

The main function of the ABCMR is to conduct a review of your military record and make any necessary changes based on whether or not you successfully demonstrate legitimate reasons for doing so. Any changes that the ABCMR make to your military record are strictly at the discretion of the board's members, which is why it is in your best interest to hire a professional. Petitioning the ABCMR is both; a commitment, and a very challenging process that can only be done within three years of the date in which the error was made.

Need Help?

Having a professional attorney guide you through this process will greatly increase your chances of success. If you need help petitioning the BCMR and wish to correct your military record, contact Military Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni at (401) 351-5100 now for a free consultation or more information.