| Representative Cases Sexual Offenses |
 |
 |
Copyright 2010, Britt, Hankins & Moughan
| Submit a Case for Our Review |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Call Us Toll Free at 1-877-569-6941 For a Free Initial Consultation |
Rape/Indecent Assault/Indecent Liberties/Indecent
Exposure/Child Pornography
An 0-4 was charged with multiple specifications of
indecent exposure and conduct unbecoming and was
facing a General Court-Martial. Mr. George aggressively
litigated the Article 32 hearing and the client ultimately
avoided court-martial and was granted resignation in lieu
of court-martial (which resulted in an under other than
honorable conditions discharge).
An E-5 faced a general court-martial for attempted
indecent liberties with a child and attempted
communication of indecent language to a child. The
client had made written and oral statements to
investigators. After fully litigating the case, the client was
found guilty, but received just three months in
confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
An E-5 was facing a General Court-Martial for multiple
allegations of indecent acts with a child under the age of
16. A thorough investigation resulted in the client
avoiding court-martial and being granted a discharge in
lieu of court-martial (which resulted in an under other than
honorable conditions discharge).
An E-4 was potentially facing two life sentences after
being accused of raping two different women, in addition
to other crimes. Ms. McCarthy conducted exhaustive
interviews of potential witnesses and discovered that
military police failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
They had not properly canvassed the area in which one of
the victims allegedly had been raped. Ms. McCarthy
located a witness that had been overlooked by the Military
Police who was present in his barracks, and heard
consensual sexual relations between the client and
accuser. At the Article 32, charges stemming from the
accusations of that alleged victim were dismissed and
the client was able to receive an administrative discharge
for the remaining charges against him.
An E-1 was charged with disobeying a lawful order,
burglary, indecent assault upon four different women, and
indecent exposure. Ms. McCarthy conducted a thorough
investigation of the case. Consequently, it was
discovered that each accuser had a motive to be
dishonest about their testimony and accusations. Before
trial, one specification of indecent assault was
dismissed. On motion by defense, the indecent exposure
was dismissed. After a fully contested panel (jury) trial,
the client was acquitted of the remaining indecent assault
charges and was given minimal confinement of fourteen
days for failure to obey a lawful order, and retained in the
service.
An E-2 was accused of indecent exposure, two counts of
indecent assault and one count of false official statement.
Ms. McCarthy was able to negotiate an administrative
separation for the soldier in lieu of court martial.
An E-6 was charged with receiving child pornography in a
General Court-Martial. The matter was fully litigated by Mr.
George and while the client was ultimately found guilty, he
received a sentence that included only thirty days of
confinement, reduction in rank and no discharge.
These are representative cases from our
representation of military members. Please note that
each case is unique and has specific legal and factual
circumstances which affect the result. These cases
are provided for informational purposes only and are in
no way a guarantee of any particular result in a future
case.
Exposure/Child Pornography
An 0-4 was charged with multiple specifications of
indecent exposure and conduct unbecoming and was
facing a General Court-Martial. Mr. George aggressively
litigated the Article 32 hearing and the client ultimately
avoided court-martial and was granted resignation in lieu
of court-martial (which resulted in an under other than
honorable conditions discharge).
An E-5 faced a general court-martial for attempted
indecent liberties with a child and attempted
communication of indecent language to a child. The
client had made written and oral statements to
investigators. After fully litigating the case, the client was
found guilty, but received just three months in
confinement and a dishonorable discharge.
An E-5 was facing a General Court-Martial for multiple
allegations of indecent acts with a child under the age of
16. A thorough investigation resulted in the client
avoiding court-martial and being granted a discharge in
lieu of court-martial (which resulted in an under other than
honorable conditions discharge).
An E-4 was potentially facing two life sentences after
being accused of raping two different women, in addition
to other crimes. Ms. McCarthy conducted exhaustive
interviews of potential witnesses and discovered that
military police failed to conduct a thorough investigation.
They had not properly canvassed the area in which one of
the victims allegedly had been raped. Ms. McCarthy
located a witness that had been overlooked by the Military
Police who was present in his barracks, and heard
consensual sexual relations between the client and
accuser. At the Article 32, charges stemming from the
accusations of that alleged victim were dismissed and
the client was able to receive an administrative discharge
for the remaining charges against him.
An E-1 was charged with disobeying a lawful order,
burglary, indecent assault upon four different women, and
indecent exposure. Ms. McCarthy conducted a thorough
investigation of the case. Consequently, it was
discovered that each accuser had a motive to be
dishonest about their testimony and accusations. Before
trial, one specification of indecent assault was
dismissed. On motion by defense, the indecent exposure
was dismissed. After a fully contested panel (jury) trial,
the client was acquitted of the remaining indecent assault
charges and was given minimal confinement of fourteen
days for failure to obey a lawful order, and retained in the
service.
An E-2 was accused of indecent exposure, two counts of
indecent assault and one count of false official statement.
Ms. McCarthy was able to negotiate an administrative
separation for the soldier in lieu of court martial.
An E-6 was charged with receiving child pornography in a
General Court-Martial. The matter was fully litigated by Mr.
George and while the client was ultimately found guilty, he
received a sentence that included only thirty days of
confinement, reduction in rank and no discharge.
These are representative cases from our
representation of military members. Please note that
each case is unique and has specific legal and factual
circumstances which affect the result. These cases
are provided for informational purposes only and are in
no way a guarantee of any particular result in a future
case.