| Representative Cases Theft/Housebreaking |
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.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| 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
