| Representative Cases Theft/Housebreaking |
 |
 |
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 |
Housebreaking/Theft
An E-1 with a previous Article 15 was facing a Special
Court-Martial for Housebreaking. Mr. George negotiated a
pretrial agreement which reduced the offense to unlawful
entry and resulted in the client receiving less than two
weeks confinement, some hard labor without
confinement and forfeitures.
An E-3 was charged with theft of government equipment.
After Mr. George fully litigated a case before a panel of
members, the client was acquitted.
An E-6 was accused of BAH fraud totaling more than
$20,000 in addition to forgery, child abuse and fraud. Ms.
McCarthy was able to negotiate an Article 15 for the client.
An E-4 was accused of conspiracy, larceny,
housebreaking, and impeding an investigation. The case
was referred to General Court Martial after an Article 32
investigation. As a result of intense negotiations between
Ms. McCarthy, the command, and trial counsel's office, the
client was given an Article 15 at which he was not found
guilty.
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.
An E-1 with a previous Article 15 was facing a Special
Court-Martial for Housebreaking. Mr. George negotiated a
pretrial agreement which reduced the offense to unlawful
entry and resulted in the client receiving less than two
weeks confinement, some hard labor without
confinement and forfeitures.
An E-3 was charged with theft of government equipment.
After Mr. George fully litigated a case before a panel of
members, the client was acquitted.
An E-6 was accused of BAH fraud totaling more than
$20,000 in addition to forgery, child abuse and fraud. Ms.
McCarthy was able to negotiate an Article 15 for the client.
An E-4 was accused of conspiracy, larceny,
housebreaking, and impeding an investigation. The case
was referred to General Court Martial after an Article 32
investigation. As a result of intense negotiations between
Ms. McCarthy, the command, and trial counsel's office, the
client was given an Article 15 at which he was not found
guilty.
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.