| Representative Cases Sexual Offenses |
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.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Call Us Toll Free at 1-877-569-6941 For a Free Initial Consultation |
| SUBMIT A CASE FOR OUR REVIEW |
 |  |
Copyright 2011, Britt, Hankins & Moughan
