Successful OER Appeal for Military Officer Represented by Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Recently, a military officer represented by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) successfully appealed a negative OER and had it thrown out and rewritten.
While this military adverse action was successfully appealed, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial or case. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Military defense law practices are worldwide.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Courts-Martial Dropped in Five Straight Cases Defended by Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Due to the pace of our caseload this summer/fall/winter, I have been unable to keep up with updating the blog. Here is a blog post addressing my last five cases…
Recently, five straight clients defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) who were facing trial by court-martial had their courts-martial dropped. The following blurbs address those cases:
A senior NCO (noncommissioned officer) facing court-martial for allegations of sexual misconduct, misuse of government equipment and reprisal termination of a subordinate had his court-martial case dropped completely after the Article 32 hearing was litigated. At the hotly contested hearing, the flaws in the government’s case were exposed and the case was dropped with no further adverse action taken.
A military officer facing court-martial allegations of violating sensitive and classified security protocols had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A senior NCO facing court-martial allegations of travel voucher fraud stemming from a period of active duty mobilization had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated, and on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A field grade officer facing court-martial allegations of travel voucher fraud stemming from a period of active duty mobilization had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated, and on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A client facing court-martial allegations of imposing improper discipline had his court-martial case dropped on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A court-martial conviction in any of these cases would have resulted in a federal criminal record and could have resulted in a sentence including possible significant jail time and a punitive discharge. While these criminal cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Military defense law practices are worldwide.
Due to the pace of our caseload this summer/fall/winter, I have been unable to keep up with updating the blog. Here is a blog post addressing my last five cases…
Recently, five straight clients defended by military law attorney Richard V. Stevens (Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, P.C.) who were facing trial by court-martial had their courts-martial dropped. The following blurbs address those cases:
A senior NCO (noncommissioned officer) facing court-martial for allegations of sexual misconduct, misuse of government equipment and reprisal termination of a subordinate had his court-martial case dropped completely after the Article 32 hearing was litigated. At the hotly contested hearing, the flaws in the government’s case were exposed and the case was dropped with no further adverse action taken.
A military officer facing court-martial allegations of violating sensitive and classified security protocols had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A senior NCO facing court-martial allegations of travel voucher fraud stemming from a period of active duty mobilization had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated, and on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A field grade officer facing court-martial allegations of travel voucher fraud stemming from a period of active duty mobilization had his court-martial case dropped after the Article 32 hearing was litigated, and on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A client facing court-martial allegations of imposing improper discipline had his court-martial case dropped on the eve of trial. The government chose to address the case administratively instead of take the case to trial as previously planned.
A court-martial conviction in any of these cases would have resulted in a federal criminal record and could have resulted in a sentence including possible significant jail time and a punitive discharge. While these criminal cases were successfully defended, it is important to understand that every case has different facts, and success in previous cases does not guarantee success in any particular future case. No military lawyer or civilian defense lawyer, including those who specialize in military law, can guarantee the outcome of any military trial. For more information on the military justice system, please see our other blog posts.
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Military defense law practices are worldwide.
Thirty Five Years Later, Man Exonerated of Kidnap and Rape of Nine Year Old Boy
According to an Article on CNN.com today, James Bain has spent the past 35 years in prison for a crime – the kidnap and rape of a 9 year old boy – that Bain did not commit. According to the article, Bain was exonerated by DNA testing and 245 others have likewise been exonerated by DNA testing. The article appears at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/17/florida.dna.exoneration/index.html
What lessons can be taken from Mr. Bain’s case? The same lessons I frequently address in these blog posts…
The criminal justice system is a system composed of human beings – police, prosecutors, judges, juries, defense attorneys, witnesses, etc. Human beings are not perfect. Mistakes are made; some of them grievous. Some of them due to bad faith and overzealousness.
Regardless, with the Internet, the 24 hour news cycle and cable television, we are bombarded by information about crimes and alleged perpetrators. This feeds a culture that is too quick to judge and unwilling to entertain the possibility of innocence or the fundamental legal precept of the presumption of innocence. Guilt, particularly regarding serious crimes, is sexier. It’s more newsworthy. “Persons of interest” grab the public’s attention and they are convicted in the court of public opinion before they see the inside of a court room.
Just some food for thought the next time you hear about a case and quickly proclaim the defendant must be guilty. Maybe, just maybe, he/she is not…
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Military defense law practices are worldwide.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
HAPPY VETERANS DAY!
Please take some time today to reflect on, and thank, those brave veterans who have served and protected our country in the past, those who are currently serving our country and the families who support and share in their sacrifices for us.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST ARMY SPC DANIEL WEBER – ATTORNEY RESPONDS TO MISINFORMATION
Army SPC Daniel Weber is represented by Mr. Richard V. Stevens (Colorado Springs) and CPT Jack Patten (Iraq). This press statement is being released by the Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens:
From the very beginning of this case, there has been misinformation reported to the press by a variety of sources and reported by the press without regard to fact checking and verifying information before it was published. In fact, some press outlets have published inaccurate information despite being informed their information was not accurate. This case has not been the finest hour for the press or for those who have fed the press information that is not accurate.
This press release will not address the substance of the claims and allegations against SPC Daniel Weber or the other accused Soldiers. Instead, it is meant to clear up widespread inaccuracies that are being reported.
It has been reported by some press outlets that SPC Weber has been discharged from the Army. That is not accurate. SPC Weber is currently serving in the Army in Iraq.
It has been reported by some press outlets that SPC Weber resigned from the Army. That is not accurate. SPC Weber is a specialist, resignation is reserved for officers resigning a commission.
It has been reported that SPC Weber has entered into a plea agreement in this case. That is not accurate. A plea agreement is a situation in which a Soldier appears before a Military Judge in a military courtroom and pleads guilty to certain offenses in exchange for some considerations or benefit from the government/prosecution. That has not happened in the Weber case.
It has been reported that SPC Weber has entered into an agreement to testify against the other accused Soldiers in this case. That is not accurate. SPC Weber has been ordered to testify in any of the cases IF called by the prosecution OR the defense. He has not made any “deal” to testify “for” or “against” any party.
With regard to SPC Weber’s current status: If any administrative actions have been taken against SPC Weber by the Army, or are pending in this case, those actions would be protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act. Any press source or press outlet should be mindful of the civil and criminal sanctions imposable under breeches of the Privacy Act.
It would be appreciated if attempts were at least made to verify information in this case before it is published.
*Press release published at:
http://www.pressrelease365.com/pr/law-and-legal/army-charges-dropped-daniel-weber-richard-stevens-3818.htm
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Army SPC Daniel Weber is represented by Mr. Richard V. Stevens (Colorado Springs) and CPT Jack Patten (Iraq). This press statement is being released by the Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens:
From the very beginning of this case, there has been misinformation reported to the press by a variety of sources and reported by the press without regard to fact checking and verifying information before it was published. In fact, some press outlets have published inaccurate information despite being informed their information was not accurate. This case has not been the finest hour for the press or for those who have fed the press information that is not accurate.
This press release will not address the substance of the claims and allegations against SPC Daniel Weber or the other accused Soldiers. Instead, it is meant to clear up widespread inaccuracies that are being reported.
It has been reported by some press outlets that SPC Weber has been discharged from the Army. That is not accurate. SPC Weber is currently serving in the Army in Iraq.
It has been reported by some press outlets that SPC Weber resigned from the Army. That is not accurate. SPC Weber is a specialist, resignation is reserved for officers resigning a commission.
It has been reported that SPC Weber has entered into a plea agreement in this case. That is not accurate. A plea agreement is a situation in which a Soldier appears before a Military Judge in a military courtroom and pleads guilty to certain offenses in exchange for some considerations or benefit from the government/prosecution. That has not happened in the Weber case.
It has been reported that SPC Weber has entered into an agreement to testify against the other accused Soldiers in this case. That is not accurate. SPC Weber has been ordered to testify in any of the cases IF called by the prosecution OR the defense. He has not made any “deal” to testify “for” or “against” any party.
With regard to SPC Weber’s current status: If any administrative actions have been taken against SPC Weber by the Army, or are pending in this case, those actions would be protected from disclosure by the Privacy Act. Any press source or press outlet should be mindful of the civil and criminal sanctions imposable under breeches of the Privacy Act.
It would be appreciated if attempts were at least made to verify information in this case before it is published.
*Press release published at:
http://www.pressrelease365.com/pr/law-and-legal/army-charges-dropped-daniel-weber-richard-stevens-3818.htm
By: Attorney Richard V. Stevens
Civilian criminal defense lawyer and military defense lawyer
Military Defense Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens, PC
http://www.militaryadvocate.com
Blog postscript: Attorney Frank Spinner and I (attorney Richard Stevens) are former active duty military lawyers (JAG). Our perspectives and advice, therefore, are based upon our experience as military defense lawyers and as civilian criminal defense lawyers practicing exclusively in the area of military law. This blog addresses issues in military law, military justice, military discipline, military defense, court-martial practice, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and other military and/or legal topics. Nothing posted in this blog should be substituted for legal advice in any particular case. If you seek legal advice for a particular case, please contact The Law Offices of Richard V. Stevens & The Law Office of Frank J. Spinner for a free consultation. Military defense law offices are located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Military defense law practices are worldwide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
