Court Martial Defense Lawyers

Our team of hard hitting defense lawyers have the experience and firepower necessary to level the playing field.

Our lawyers defend military personnel worldwide. Our attorneys defend Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard court martial cases in the USA, Europe, the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait. Bahrain, Afghanistan), and the Pacific (Korea, Hawaii, Japan). We also defend clients that are suspected of crimes or under investigation BEFORE they are charged with the intent of avoiding charges. Founded and led by attorney Michael Waddington, our firm is the most aggressive, experienced and successful team of military lawyers in the world.

HOT TOPIC: Sexual Assault in the Military- Click here if you are accused of sexual assault.

Currently, due to political pressure, many servicemembers are being persecuted by overzealous law enforcement, JAGs, and politically correct commands. Many will do whatever it takes to convict you and send you to jail. If you are accused of a sexual offense, then you must hire the best sex assault defense lawyer possible to aggressively fight for your freedom and reputation. Your life depends on it. If you rely on a free military lawyer to save your life, then you are rolling the dice. When you gamble, you usually lose. The house wins. Here, the house is the military.

When it comes to military sexual assault and rape cases, our results and experience are unmatched. Contact us to discuss your case!

Results

We invite you to compare our case results with ANY lawyers worldwide, civilian or military. We also provide references on request.

Chart Listing Recent Court Martial Case Results with Discharges Listed


What are the Real Costs of a Court Martial Conviction? - Learn why a quick plea deal may not be in your best interests.

High Profile Cases

Mr. Waddington has successfully defended numerous serious sexual assault cases and high profile court martial cases arising from the War on Terror. He has been reported on and quoted by hundreds of major media sources worldwide and provided consultation services to 60 Minutes, ABC Nightline, CNN, CBS, the 2010 Golden Globe winning TV series "The Good Wife" and other various international media outlets. Click here to see clips of "The Good Wife" court martial episode.

Click here to read about our high profile cases.

In a Court Martial, What Am I Up Against?
In the military justice system, the Prosecution has numerous attorneys and paralegals working hard to put you in prison for as long as possible. The accused is often scared, overwhelmed, and feels helpless, and they should be. The deck is stacked against them. That is what the military wants. Defendants believe that they have no choice but to quickly plead guilty. PLEADING GUILTY SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT! YET, SOME MILITARY & CIVILIAN DEFENSE LAWYERS PLEAD ALL OF THEIR CLIENTS GUILTY, EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE A FIGHTING CHANCE OR THEY ARE INNOCENT.

-ASK YOUR PROSPECTIVE CIVILIAN OR MILITARY LAWYER TO DESCRIBE THE DETAILS & OUTCOMES OF THE LAST 12 CASES THEY DEFENDED. ASK HOW MANY OF THIER CLIENTS WERE ACQUITTED, HOW MANY WERE NOT DISCHARGED FROM THE MILITARY, & HOW MANY CASES THEY FOUGHT IN FRONT OF A JURY. Click here to see Mr. Waddington's Recent Case Results

BEWARE - RED FLAG: If your free military lawyer DOES NOT want you to hire an experienced civilian lawyer, be very cautious. Your military lawyer should want as much legal firepower as possible on your team. Many military lawyers try to persuade the accused to not hire a civilian because of ego or because they want to force you into a quick and easy guilty plea.

The military has a conviction rate over 90% and almost all convicted defendants are discharged from the military and sent to prison.

When you plead guilty, you have over a 95% chance of going to jail, getting a punitive discharge from the military, losing your rank, & you are GUARANTEED to be a Federal convict for the rest of your life. If you want to discuss fighting your case, call our military attorneys to discuss your options.

Take a look at what you are up against & why you need a hard hitting, fearless civilian defense lawyer fighting for you (these observations are based on Mr. Waddington's personal experience in court martials worldwide):

  • Government prosecution team members usually outnumber your assigned military defense team 5 to 1. They will often manipulate every aspect of the case and fight hard to deprive you of your ability to mount a legal defense. Some will use underhanded tactics to win. You must level the playing field with a battle tested defense lawyer.

  • The accused is often denied requested delays and continuances so that they can prepare for courts martial, Article 32's, and boards.

  • Some prosecutors will acquire the testimony of witnesses by offering them immunity, plea deals, and favors, so long as the witnesses help the prosecution win their case & say what they want them to say. You need a lawyer that can destroy lying witnesses and uncover corrupt prosecutors and perjured testimony.

  • Almost always, the accused is denied expert assistance, even when the prosecution has numerous expert witnesses in the same area. Commonly, the prosecutor and SJA play a key role in ensuring that the accused is denied expert assistance. The accused is usually forced to beg the judge for the same experts that the Government has and that is often denied as well. The accused must have an attorney with the experience and skill to win a case without defense experts, if necessary.

  • Military prosecutors often use the "shotgun approach" to charging. Their strategy is simple, charge a military service member with as many charges as possible, and they will have no choice but to plead guilty. It is not uncommon for a court martial charge sheet to be 3 pages long, usually with the same conduct charged over and over again, in a variety of ways.

  • The Government has virtually unlimited financial resources and some prosecutors will try to win at all costs.

  • CID, OSI, NCIS, & other military investigators are trained to use lies, trickery, & deceit, & they are good at it. Their official training courses teach them to use "Liars, Trickery, & Deceit" to get the job done. They will get away with as much lying as the defense lawyer will allow. You need a lawyer that can expose their lying, deceptive ways, & turn it to your advantage at trial. NEVER TRUST A CID, OSI, or NCIS AGENT if you are a suspected of a crime or being "interviewed" by an investigator. Don't trust a military lawyer that claims to be "friends" with OSI, CID, or NCIS. You will live to regret it, after you get out of military prison.

  • The Government has its own staff of criminal investigators (CID, NCIS, OSI, MPI, etc.) trying to dig up dirt to use against you. They will almost always overlook, misplace, or hide evidence that helps your case. At trial, they will take innocent facts and twist them to make you look guilty.

  • Rank often plays a role in the outcome of your case. Almost always, the Judge, the Chief of Military Justice, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), most of the jury, the Convening Authority (the person that picks the jury and decides whether or not you will be court martialed), the Article 32 officer, the chain of command, and virtually every person that makes a decision in your case will outrank you and your assigned Military Lawyer. An aggressive civilian defense lawyer is not subject to rank.

  • The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) is the convening authority's (CA) legal advisor. The SJA has a duty to be fair, neutral, and impartial when giving advice. The SJA's role is "justice." The reality is, to many SJA's, "justice" means a conviction, hard jail time, and a discharge. The SJA is the boss, senior supervisor, and rater of the prosecutor. They are not looking out for your freedom and your family's welfare. They are not neutral. They want you in jail. Most SJA's actively strategize with their prosecutors on how to convict the defendant and maximize his jail time. Many SJAs admonish their prosecutors when they lose a case. Some SJAs will put pressure on your military lawyer to get their way.
  • In the Air Force, the "neutral" SJA will almost always refuse to allow Article 32 testimony to be recorded and/or transcribed, unless it will help their case. They will often stop the Article 32 hearing if the defense lawyers attempt to record the testimony at their own expense, even in cases where the accused faces LIFE in prison. Refusing to record hearings in Felony cases is unheard of in civilian and other military courts. In a recent rape Article 32 at Dover AFB, the defense was forbidden from using a tape recorder to record the hearing and from transcribing the hearing at their own expense. The prosecution and SJA fought against the recording. The stated reason was that the defense would use the transcript at trial to impeach the alleged "victim" if she changed her story. Think you can't afford an experienced civilian lawyer, you can't afford not to!
  • Some SJA offices will proceed to trial on baseless charges even when the Article 32 investigating officer finds that the charges are not supported by the facts.
  • In a court martial, the prosecution can call any witnesses they want. They don't have to tell the accused what the witness will say. On the other hand, the defense, in order to have witnesses brought to court martial, must disclose to the prosecution exactly what the witnesses will say (in writing) and what role that testimony will have in the defense. Some judges require the defense to disclose even more details to the prosecution. This often reveals the entire defense strategy. In the end, after the prosecution learns the defense strategy, they can then pick and choose which defense witnesses will be brought to the court martial.
  • In some cases (especially high profile court martial cases), extreme pressure will be put on the military defense lawyer to "not rock the boat" or "burn bridges."
  • Military defense lawyers are forbidden (by the military, not their State Legal Bar Associations) to speak or deal with the media, even if they speak the truth and it will help their client get a fair trial. They must get "permission" from their senior boss, an O-6 in Washington, DC, in order to be able to respond to negative or false press. The prosecution often releases harmful and unfounded information to the media when they file charges. In the Army, defense lawyers are even more restricted. During the high profile Bagram Prison Abuse court martials of 2005-2006, Mr. Waddington (then an Army lawyer) successfully fought false Government accusations in the media. It embarrassed the military, exposed a bogus prosecution, and revealed that the Pentagon sanctioned detainee abuse and then court martialed soldiers for carrying out their orders. In Dec 2005, in the middle of the Bagram trials, Army TDS leadership rewrote their policy and made it nearly impossible for an Army TDS lawyer to defend against negative press.

BOTTOM LINE: IF YOU WANT A FAIR SHAKE IN THE MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM, THEN YOU NEED A FEARLESS LAWYER TO FIGHT FOR IT.
RECENT CASE RESULTS:
  • THESE RECENT CASES SHOW THAT IN THE MILITARY, THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY UNLESS & UNTIL HE CAN PROVE HIS INNOCENCE, ESPECIALLY IN A SEX ASSAULT CASE.

    The accused needs the highest powered defense possible, even if he is innocent. Otherwise, his rights will be trampled and he may end up in jail.

    To the Government, innocence does not matter. It is not relevant. What matters is winning convictions and statistics. The military must prove to Congress and lobbyists that they take sexual assault seriously. To prove this, they need AS MANY MEN CONVICTED OF SEX CRIMES AS POSSIBLE. Congress and the Military need sex crime convictions in order to justify the more than $100 million a year they now spend prosecuting sex crimes in the military. DON'T BECOME A STATISTIC WITHOUT A FIGHT!

  • April 2012 – U.S. v. Army E-4 – Fort Carson, Colorado -
    Client was charged with raping a fellow soldier and committing an aggravated sexual assault (and assault and battery) on another female soldier. He was also charged with violating a no contact order imposed by his commander, to not contact one of the alleged victims.

    Mr. Waddington along with CPT Jeremy Horn and CPT Melissa Desgupta-Smith fought the charges in front of an officer and enlisted jury.

    During jury selection, we learned that the President of the jury, an O-6, was responsible for implementing the Fort Carson Sex Assault Program. He was friends with the Victim Advocates and had worked with the lead prosecutor, fighting sex assault. Stacking the jury with pro-prosecution jurors is something that Mr. Waddington is seeing more and more often in Army sex assault cases. In this case, this Colonel was removed from the jury.

    In addition, a group of female Victim Advocates came to court every day and sat in the front row, in an apparent show of force. During a break in the court martial, one of the victim advocates started heckling the defense.

    During the trial, the prosecution called the Chief of the Fort Carson Sex Assault Program, a supposed expert in "Sexual Assault Victim Behavior." The "victim behavior" expert testified that all of the actions of the alleged victims in this case were "consistent" with sex assault victims. In other words, the victims were telling the truth. In reality, this "expert" never met the alleged victims, never reviewed the case file, and knew nothing about the case.

    The expert told the jury that when victims lie repeatedly, that means they are telling the truth. When a victim changes major details of her story, that means she is telling the truth. When a victim embellishes her story, that means she is telling the truth. The expert testimony was absurd.

    The defense was not allowed to discuss the past relationships of the alleged victims, including their relationships with the accused. The jury never got to hear the full truth because it was "too prejudicial."

    The defense showed that the Government witnesses had motive to lie, they had lied repeatedly in the past, and their allegations were false.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, Guilty of violating no contact order

    Sentence: NO jail time, NO sex offender registration, NO discharge, 60 days restriction, forfeiture of pay, reduction to E-1

  • April 2012 – U.S. v. Air Force E-3 – MacDill AFB, Tampa, FL -
    Client was accused of sexually assaulting the wife of a fellow Airman on two occasions. Mr. Waddington was hired after the case was docketed for trial. We were able to negotiate a plea deal that saved client from a Federal Conviction and Sex Offender registration.

    Result: ALL SEX CHARGES dropped. Case was sent to a SCM so long as client admitted to assault. A Summary Court does not give the client a criminal record.

    Sentence: NO sex offender registration, NO Federal conviction, NO discharge, 30 days of confinement, reduction to E-1

  • April 2012 – U.S. v. Marine O-3 – Marine Forces Reserve, Naval Support Activity, New Orleans, LA - A married female Marine officer accused our client of rape. Our client took and passed two polygraphs. The alleged "victim" did not take a polygraph.

    Basically, the female officer cheated on her husband with our client and lied to cover up the affair. The alleged victim had a history of lying and adultery. Because NCIS wants convictions, regardless of the the truth, they ignored key evidence and failed to collect evidence that proved our client's innocence. They also disregarded the two polygraphs.

    Mr. Waddington and Capt David Segraves aggressively fought the allegations at the Article 32. The NCIS agent was exposed as incompetent and corrupt. The Article 32 officer determined that our client was innocent of rape. The NCIS agent became angry after the Article 32. He then launched a personal vendetta against our client, contacted his civilian employer and tried to get our client fired by claiming he was a rapist.

    Luckily, we had the two polygraphs and the result from the Article 32.

    In the end, the rape charges were dropped and our client pled guilty to adultery (the alleged victim was married, not our client) and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. As a reward, the alleged victim was given protected "Victim Status" and continues to serve as a Marine Officer. She was never disciplined for adultery or for lying.

    Result: ALL SEX CHARGES dropped. Case was sent to a Special Court - Misdemeanor Level - for Adultery and Conduct Unbecoming

    Sentence: NO sex offender registration, NO felony conviction, NO jail time, Restriction for 60 days, Forfeitures
  • February 2012 - U.S. v. Air Force E-4 - Davis-Monthan AFB, Tucson, AZ -

    Client was accused of rape and aggravated sexual assault. The prosecution double charged him although sex occurred once.

    This allegation was made months after the sex, while the "victim" was facing discharge from the military. (NOTE: In the modern military, if you are a female, one easy way to avoid a negative discharge for misconduct is to make up a false sex assault allegation. You are guaranteed an Honorable and you may get VA and victim compensation payments).

    The accused allegedly entered a female Airman's dorm room without permission and committed the offenses while she was incoherent from a high powered psychiatric medicine. The victim claimed that she did not invite the client into her room (in reality, she opened the door) and that she did not have a dating relationship with him (although they dated for weeks prior to the sex). We proved that her underlying story was not true. Our client maintained his innocence from the beginning.

    The alleged victim claimed the crime happened while she was on a high powered prescription medication that rendered her catatonic. OSI took her word for it. After all, most OSI, CID, and NCIS agents believe that the accused is ALWAYS GUILTY and a woman would never lie. Special Agents often do not look at the facts. Rather, they look for evidence to help win a conviction. They overlook or cover-up evidence that proves innocence.

    The prescription medication was crucial because the accused was positive that he did not have sex or any physical contact with the "victim" during the month that she claimed she was assaulted. If she was not on the prescription medication when the sex occurred, then she was lying about being unconscious during the sex.

    Mr. Waddington went to Davis-Monthan and demanded to see the full medical records. OSI resisted. OSI never provided the full medical records to the SJA office or the defense. OSI cherry picked pages from the medical file but did not include the records that showed that the "victim" was not prescribed the medicine until a month after the sex. Bottom line: She never took the medicine until after she and the accused broke up.

    OSI did not hand over this crucial evidence because they determined that it was "not relevant." TO OSI, EVIDENCE THAT PROVES INNOCENCE IS NOT RELEVANT, therefore they often don't hand it over.

    At the Article 32, the investigating officer ordered OSI to hand over all medical records in their possession. Mr. Waddington, his co-counsel, Captain Jeffrey Davis, and the prosecutor, went to OSI to get their ENTIRE case file. It turns out that OSI never handed over crucial medical records and other evidence. This evidence supported the accused. The "victim" was not on the drug when the sex occurred.

    Did the case stop here? NO WAY. OSI hand another plan. They tried to claim that the accused confessed.

    Before the Article 32, OSI used a pre textual phone call and text messages to try and entrap our client into confessing that he committed rape. Our client was innocent and he denied the allegations. However, OSI violated their own procedures and chose not to record the phone call. Instead, they "took notes" on what was supposedly said during the 30 minute discussion. They took a 30 minute phone call and "summarized it" in a few sentences.

    OSI completely twisted the conversation and the context of the conversation. For example, the accused said words such as, "I am sorry that you feel that way, but I did not assault you. I am sorry, but that did not happen. I am not that kind of guy. I did not rape you."

    OSI wrote that the accused repeatedly said "I am sorry" for what happened and expressed remorse for his actions. OSI took the stand and claimed that the accused admitted to sexual assault.

    The defense presented evidence (receipts, bank records, text message, phone bills, and other information) that proved that the accused ended his relationship with the alleged victim a month before she ever took the drugs and that they never had physical contact since the break up. In other words, she was lying about having sex with the accused while knocked out by the drug.

    DID IT END HERE? NO WAY!
    The Article 32 officer acknowledged that the "victim's" story had problems, she had terrible memory, and she was apparently not on the drug at the time of the sex. THE ARTICLE 32 OFFICER THEN RECOMMENDED A GENERAL COURT MARTIAL FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT

    Mr. Waddington and Captain Davis brought on a high powered expert witness and Forensic Psychologist, Dr. Gabriel Holguin, to assist the defense at trial. The defense prepared for a contested jury trial and Dr. Holguin finally got a copy of ALL of the medical records. We cannot disclose the contents of the records. The records were not helpful for the prosecution. OSI should have been aware of the records, but they never bothered to look at them. The defense was ready to fight the charges at trial.

    RESULT: Mr. Waddington traveled to Tucson for the trial.
    ALL CHARGES DISMISSED ON THE EVE OF TRIAL

  • January 2012 – U.S. v. Army O-3 – Fort Jackson, SC -
    Client was the Company Commander of a Basic Training Company. He was accused by three different female trainees of sexual assault as well as charges of fraternization, violation of a regulation, conduct unbecoming and officer, and sexual harassment. In addition to the alleged victims, a number of other soldiers came forward to testify against our client. Our client also made a statement to CID that did not help his case. (Because of the sensitivity of the case, we are not including details, but the facts were not good for the defense). Our objective was to avoid a sex offender registration and jail time.

    Mr. Waddington and CPT Jim Sleesman defended this challenging case in front of an officer jury. The Commanding General stacked the jury with his most senior Combat Arms officers (mostly Infantry LTC Battalion Commanders) and appointed his Chief of Staff to be the President of the jury. Waddington and Sleesman confronted the three alleged victims one by one, disproving their stories. In the end, our client was acquitted of all sex charges and 70% of the other allegations. He was convicted of violating a regulation and one count of assault & battery.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, Convicted of other minor offenses Sentence: Dismissal, NO jail time, NO sex offender registration

  • October 2011 - U.S. v. Army E-8 - SOUTHCOM, Miami, El Salvador, Fort Sam Houston, TX - Client was a Special Forces soldier accused of violently raping and sodomizing a Salvadoran housekeeper. There was allegedly physical evidence, DNA evidence and numerous eyewitnesses that supported the claim. The El Salvadoran Government wanted our client in jail. To appease the Salvadorans, the American Government spared no expense to win this case. It became an international incident between the US & Salvadorans and Not Guilty was not an option for the US Government.

    However, our client took and passed a polygraph and provided evidence to prove his innocence to the US Government. SOUTHCOM disregarded all of his evidence and suppressed it at trial. They wanted to make an example out of this soldier and gain favor with El Salvador by sacrificing one of their own (regardless of his innocence).

    To gain an upper hand, the prosecution denied almost all defense witnesses. However, they flew up numerous Salvadoran witnesses and several American witnesses to testify against our client. They also brought a Salvadoran doctor who tested that there was overwhelming physical evidence to prove rape.

    To further stack the deck, the Army appointed one of the top Special Victim Prosecutors (SVP) in the Army. Then, they brought in a nationally known civilian prosecutor and expert in sexual assault prosecutions (similar to Nancy Grace) to work with the prosecution and get a conviction.

    Mr. Waddington and Capt Dustin Murphy, along with legendary DNA expert, Dean Wideman, mounted a defense for our client with limited resources. We proved that the alleged victim was a hustler and liar, her husband most likely raped her, and that the DNA evidence proved our client's innocence.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
  • October 2011 - U.S. v. Navy E-5 - Rota Navy Base, Spain - Client accused of sexually assaulting a female sailor, tax evasion, fraud, aggravated assault on another female, indecent language, and other offenses. We plead not guilty and fought the charges.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
  • September 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-3 - McGuire AFB, New Jersey - Client was accused of two Sexual Assault - Article 120 offenses (aggravated sexual assault and wrongful sexual contact). He was also charged with underage drinking. Our client faced over 31 years in prison. He was accused of going into a bathroom where a female airman had been vomiting and was supposedly unconscious and sexually assaulting her. Two Security Forces police officers claimed to have witnessed the crime and intervened.

    To strengthen their case, Air Force OSI agents planned a sting operation where the alleged victim called the accused and tried to get him to admit to the crimes. They recorded the call, in which the accused repeatedly apologized and said some very incriminating statements. The recording was played for the jury.

    Michael Waddington and Capt Miguel "The Hammer" Acosta teamed up once again to defend the accused. We fought all of the charges in front of an enlisted jury.

    Prior to the case, the McGuire AFB SARC (Sex Assault Response Coordinator) had intentionally tainted the jury pool by teaching EVERYONE ON THE JURY (15 jurors in total) classes about sexual assault. She had been teaching the base and members of the jury that if a female has ANY alcohol then the female cannot consent to sexual relations and if a female has ANY alcohol and has ANY sexual encounter, then she is a victim of sexual assault. Almost all of the jurors stated that if a girl vomits due to alcohol, then she cannot consent. The defense team had a difficult task ahead of them.

    The defense was able to prove that the Security Forces police officer "witnesses" were liars and criminals and that they severely perjured themselves on the stand. We proved that they severely beat and abused our client the night of the "assault" because he was caught making out with one of their police officers girlfriends. In addition, the victim was exposed as a liar, drama queen and drug and alcohol addict. We showed that she also played a role in the beating and aggravated assault of our client and its cover-up.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES. Guilty of Underage drinking.

    Sentence: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, NO LOSS OF RANK, Reprimand and forfeiture of $200 x 4 months

    UPDATE: The court martial conviction was OVERTURNED by the General in October 2011. The conviction was dismissed.
  • August 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-4 - Minot AFB, North Dakota - Client was accused of breaking into the home of a female that he had just met that day and raping her while she was unconscious. This was a tough case because the alleged victim and her friends all claimed that she was very drunk, that she was vomiting, that she could not walk, and that she was unconscious. They also claimed that the next day, our client confessed to the crimes and apologized.

    Mr. Waddington fought this case with ADC Capt Todd Tilford. We were also assisted by the renowned forensic psychologist, Dr. Jeffrey Younggren.

    When we started jury selection, we discovered that the jury was stacked with biased jurors. Several jurors and/or their family members were sex assault victims, one juror was a sex assault victim advocate and one was in law enforcement. We got down to 5 jurors and fought the charges in front of an enlisted panel.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS
  • August 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force O-5 - McGuire AFB, New Jersey - Lt Col client was accused of 9 specifications including adultery, indecent language towards female subordinates, unprofessional relationship with 3 subordinates, illegal use of a Government cell phone, and fraternizing with three lower enlisted subordinates. Our goal was to save his retirement, avoid lengthy jail time and to get a Not Guilty on the adultery. The client was married as was one subordinate. The evidence was overwhelming and included text messages, numerous witnesses, Facebook messages, a hotel receipt and phone records.

    Mr. Waddington and ADC Capt Miguel Acosta fought the allegations in front of an officer jury. In the end, we were able to save his retirement and get a reasonable sentence (the prosecution asked for 6 months and a dismissal). He was found not guilty of adultery and the defense team convinced the judge to dismiss three additional charges. In sentencing, the Judge merged two of the other charges into one charge.

    Punishment: NO DISMISSAL, 60 days in jail, forfeitures, and a reprimand.
  • July 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-4 - Eglin AFB, Florida - Client accused of violently raping, choking and threatening an Air Force Security Forces/Policewoman. After the alleged rape, he supposedly showed her a music video of a woman being raped, killed and eaten and threatened her. This alleged "victim" was very persuasive and could cry on demand. The problem was, she was lying. Our client maintained his innocence throughout the case.

    The Air Force brought in their best and most aggressive female sex assault prosecutor, the Nancy Grace of the Air Force. This prosecutor is one of the best in the military.

    The defense assembled a Dream Team of their own. Mr. Waddington, ADC Capt Andrew Norton, and Senior ADC Maj Jack Jones mounted their defense by extensively investigating the alleged victim. We were able to prove that the victim was the ex-girlfriend of the accused, after the "rape" they continued to have sex, that the victim posted Facebook messages joking about being raped, and other damaging facts.

    In addition, we proved that the victim did not cry rape until after the accused dumped her and started to see another girl. First she claimed that she was pregnant and tried to get back together with the accused. When he refused, she accused him of rape.

    We also presented several other airmen that the victim had falsely accused of sex assault and later recanted. The "victim" took the witness stand and lied about all of the above facts because she did not know that we had proof and we had her Facebook records.

    Also, she claimed that after she was raped, she was forced to watch the disturbing rape video. We proved that the victim went to a rock concert of the band that made the video and posted pictures about it on Facebook, after the alleged rape.

    ALL CHARGES WERE DISMISSED.

    This "victim" is still in the Air Force and will likely falsely accuse someone else in the near future. This goes to show that the command is afraid of women that falsely claim to be sexual assault victim. She should be court martialed for perjury and false official statement. Instead, she is still getting preferential treatment.
  • July 2011 - U.S. v. Air Force E-6 - Aviano AFB, Italy - Client with 18 years of service was responsible for a supply warehouse on various deployments. He was accused of stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars of military equipment and selling it on Ebay.

    The Government lined up numerous witnesses and alleged coconspirators to testify that our client was guilty. The client was facing over 30 years in prison and a DD and he was originally offer a plea deal that would have sent him to jails for several years.

    Mr. Waddington and ADC Capt Christopher James fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury.

    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL LARCENY CHARGES GUILTY of one charge, Dereliction of Duty

    Punishment: 30 days in jail, NO DISCHARGE, one grade reduction, a reprimand, and forfeitures
  • May 2011 - U.S. v. Army E-5 - Fort Irwin, California - Client accused of sexually assaulting a male subordinate soldier. The "victim" claimed to be straight and alleged that our client repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted him. The prosecution portrayed our client as a gay sexual predator. Our client claimed that it was the victim that was harassing and assaulting him.

    Mr. Waddington, without military co-counsel, fought the charges at the Article 32 hearing. We were warned that the case was "going forward to trial regardless of what the Article 32 officer recommended." Undaunted, Mr. Waddington proceeded to fight the charges at the Article 32 and confronted the alleged "victim" with devastating text messages and gay porn images that the "victim" took of himself and sent to our client. The lying "victim" thought the images no longer existed because our client's phone was destroyed. The images were forensically recovered by a private lab for use in defense of our client. At first, the victim denied the images and then, when confronted, he claimed they were taken and sent "by accident." Another lying Government "victim" was exposed.

    ALL COURT MARTIAL CHARGES DISMISSED.
Gonzalez & Waddington, LLC Reviews on ProvenCredible | Powered By Qualified Impressions

Military Defense Lawyer - Sexual Assault Trial Lawyer

Michael Waddington is a criminal defense lawyer defending service members worldwide at court martial and administrative separation boards. In the past year alone, he has successfully defended military personnel in Europe, the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait), Central Asia (Afghanistan), the Pacific (Yongsan Korea, Camp Casey Korea, Okinawa Japan, Yokota Japan), and throughout the United States. Mr. Waddington has a reputation for being a fearless and hard hitting trial lawyer. He has successfully fought cases with overwhelming odds and drives a hard bargain when negotiating. Prosecutors don't take a defense lawyer seriously unless they know that the lawyer has a history of taking cases to trial and winning.

Mr. Waddington has been involved in some of the most high profile cases arising from the War on Terror. He has extensive experience fighting against Military Prosecution "Teams" and winning. Mr. Waddington will personally handle your case from start to finish. He keeps his case load small and generally only takes cases were the client wants to fight the allegations.

Know Your Rights as a Suspect

Choosing a military defense attorney may be the most important decision that you will ever have to make. Do not go into a court martial or administrative separation board without carefully selecting your lawyer.

Court Martial Lawyer

Our defense lawyers provide professional representation at General Court Martial (GCM), Special Court Martial (BCD Special), or Summary Court Martial (SCM). Working with your assigned counsel, we take the lead and develop the best strategy to protect your life, liberty and property.

Administrative Separation & Show Cause Boards

Our attorneys can help defend your rights at separation boards & show cause boards. Mr. Waddington has successfully represented hundreds of service members facing administrative separation.

Military Medical Malpractice Lawyer

Navy medical malpractice lawyer
Army medical malpractice lawyer
Air Force medical malpractice lawyer
Military medical malpractice attorney
Navy medical malpractice attorney
Army medical malpractice attorney
Air Force medical malpractice attorney

Military Discharge Upgrades - Discharge Upgrade Attorney

Click here for a guide to Army Discharge Upgrades, written by Michael Wadington. Our lawyers can help you with your military discharge upgrade and we can represent you in front of a discharge review board or in the preparation of your military discharge upgrade packet.