Court Martial Defense Lawyer

Michael Waddington is a court martial defense lawyer defending military personnel worldwide. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has defended court martial cases in the USA, Europe, the Middle East (Iraq, Kuwait. Bahrain, Afghanistan), and the Pacific (Korea, Hawaii, Japan). He also accepts clients that are suspected of crimes or under investigation. Mr. Waddington prefers to handle a select number of cases in order to dedicate his time to getting the best result possible for his clients.

Mr. Waddington has successfully defended numerous high profile court martial cases arising from the War on Terror and has been reported on and quoted by hundreds of major media sources worldwide. He has 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 read about our high profile cases.

Chart Listing Recent Court Martial Case Results with Discharges Listed

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

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

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

The military has a conviction rate over 90% and almost all convicted defendants are discharged from the military and/or 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 Mr. Waddington 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. 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.
  • 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:

  • June 2010 - U.S. v. Air Force E-3 - Cannon AFB, New Mexico - Client stabbed a fellow airman on the flight line with a butterfly knife while launching an AC-130.  The knife punctured the arm and the right lung of the victim.  It also collapsed the lung.  Client's commander vowed to hang client out to dry and then ordered that no one speak with the accused for 7 months.  Client's NCO allegedly ordered the accused to not bring the illegal knife on the flight line.  In addition, client allegedly assaulted the victim on a prior occasion with the knife.  Client was charged with aggravated assault with the intent to inflict grievous bodily injury, aggravated assault with means likely to produce grievous bodily injury and disobeying an order to not bring the knife to work.  We faced numerous eyewitnesses, an alleged videotaped confession and many bloody photographs.  Mr. Waddington and Capt Bryan Warnock contested all charges in front of an officer jury.
    Result: NOT GUILTY of the first aggravated assault, NOT GUILTY of disobeying an order, NOT GUILTY of aggravated assault with intent to inflict, GUILTY of a lesser charge of assault.
    NOTE: The judge gave the client over 210 days of confinement credit because we proved that his command unlawfully and illegally punished him prior to trial.
    Sentence: NO DISCHARGE, 156 days in jail (210 of sentence credit - 156 sentence = 54 days of jail owed to client), E-1
    BOTTOM LINE: The client walked out of jail a free man with no discharge.

  • June 2010, U.S. v. Army E-5 - Baumholder (Smith Barracks), Germany - (Some Smith Barracks prosecutors were not happy with our original short summary and complained to Mr. Waddington. As such, we decided to add more details in order to make them happy).

  • Summary - Our client, an infantry soldier, was charged with multiple aggravated assaults on Iraqi insurgents/detainees and dereliction of duty.  He allegedly stuck a gun in the mouths of 3 different Iraqi detainees and supposedly severely beat another in the back of an MRAP in Sadr City, Iraq causing grievous bodily harm.  The prosecution charged the client and an Article 32 was scheduled on very short notice, giving Mr. Waddington only days to prepare and to be present to defend the client. This was done although the Government knew that the client was represented by Mr. Waddington. Mr. Waddington has a busy trial schedule and is located in the USA. In Mr. Waddington's opinion, which is based on years of experience in dealing with Army prosecutors, his experience in defending many court martial cases, his knowledge of the Smith Barracks prosecutors and his experience as a former JAG lawyer, this was done to catch the defense off guard and to deprive the client the ability to be prepared and to mount a defense. Mr. Waddington, believing that the prosecution was bluffing, cleared his schedule and rushed to Germany to defend the case with a few days notice.  The defense team quickly investigated the background of the accusers, including a disgruntled 1LT (the main instigator of the allegations) and prepared to battle at the Article 32.  The lead prosecutor expected us to delay the Article 32 (this info was told to Mr. Waddington by an Army JAG stationed at Smith Barracks). The defense aggressively fought the charges at the Article 32.  The Article 32 officer recommended a trial on 2 of the 6 charges.  The case was sent to the Commanding General with a recommendation that the case go to trial. The prosecution tried to get the charges referred (sent to a court martial). In an attempt to stop the court martial, the defense wrote and sent a memorandum to the Commanding General. In the memo, the defense explained why the charges should be dropped and why the case should not be sent to court martial. The General refused to send the case to court martial, against the recommendation of the Government.
    Result: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED BY THE COMMANDING GENERAL
  • May 2010 - U.S. v. Army O-3 - Torii Station, Okinawa, Japan -
    Client was accused of 16 specifications, including rape, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault with a knife, making numerous death threats, wrongfully wearing a Bronze Star and Master Parachutist Badge he did not earn, disobeying a General order, conduct unbecoming, disobeying several commanding officers orders, false official statement and others.
    To increase their chances of winning, the Army brought in a top Special Victim Prosecutor (SVP) specifically tasked with winning sex assault cases.  They also replaced the trial counsel with the Deputy SJA for Okinawa.  Mr. Waddington and co-counsel CPT Ernesto Gapasin fought the charges in front of an officer jury.
    Result: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES

  • May 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-6 - Fort Gordon, Georgia - Client accused of forcible rape, fraternization and adultery.  CID investigation determined that offenses were" founded."  We entered the case before charges were filed.  We investigated the alleged "victim" and contacted the command and the prosecution to let them know we would fight the allegations. We presented evidence to the prosecution and the command that supported our client's innocence.
    Result: Command REFUSED TO PROSECUTE client and gave him a reprimand for adultery

  • May 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-6 - Camp Zama, Japan - Client accused of raping a fellow soldier and sexually assaulting another soldier.  Strong DNA evidence and bruises supposedly supported the prosecution.  Mr. Waddington and CPT Ernesto Gapasin fought the Article 32 and the Government’s star witnesses were impeached.  Despite the Article 32 recommendation in favor of the defense, the prosecution pressed forward with all charges and brought in a seasoned special prosecutor.  The defense demanded additional DNA testing for use at trial. Co-counsels CPT Tim Bilecki and CPT Ernesto Gapasin, tried the case in front of an enlisted panel with Mr. Waddington serving “of counsel.”
    Result: NOT GUILTY of rape, guilty of wrongful sexual contact, acquitted of all remaining charges
    Punishment: The military jury gave NO PUNISHMENT

  • May 2010 - U.S. v. Army O-4 - Fort Knox, Kentucky - Client was an Army jet pilot that was accused of misappropriating an Army plane for his personal use by flying it on four trips from Texas to Las Vegas and California.  Flight log records, AR 15-6 and sworn statements seemed to supported allegations.  We defended this case with  CPT Arthur Tsao.  Client was scheduled for a Flight Evaluation Board (FEB) which could be followed by possible UCMJ.
    Result: We investigated the charges, uncovered evidence which proved client’s innocence and convinced the commanding General to drop the FEB days before the scheduled board.  Client was allowed to resume flying.  Command issued a basic reprimand for giving the appearance of impropriety.  No UCMJ or board

  • May 2010 - U.S. v. Marine E-6 - Undisclosed base in USA - Marine accused of taking tens of thousands of dollars in bribes and kickbacks from foreign nationals during the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in exchange for contracts.  We got involved early and were proactive in our defense.  The JAGs threatened client with years in jail if we did not agree to a "deal."
    Result: The client claimed his innocence and refused their “deals.” After 2 years of investigations and intimidation tactics, the military eventually DROPPED THE CASE.

  • April 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-6 - Fort McPherson, Georgia - Client accused of stealing military equipment worth over $200,000, to include secret thermal imaging devices used on military drones and weapons systems, body armor, advanced combat helmets and computer equipment.  Client then sold and shipped the thermal imaging devices to sources in China, Japan and Italy before the FBI raided his apartment in Atlanta.  The FBI was investigating client for international trafficking of secret weapons technology.  Client confessed to FBI and CID and made a videotaped and written confession.  Mr. Waddington defended the case with CPT Michael Tregle and CPT Krista Carpenter.  Initially, the Government wanted 5 years in prison.
    Result: Not guilty on 3 charges of stealing military property.  Plead guilty to 3 allegations of wrongfully dispossessing military property.
    Sentence: 15 months in jail, forfeitures, E-1, BCD

  • April 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-5 - Fort Rucker, Alabama - Client stole over $160,000 in BAH and Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA).  She was divorced but claimed that she was married for over 10 years.  Client signed full confession and faced a maximum of 90 years in prison and a Felony conviction.  Mr. Waddington defended case with CPT Sheila Burns.
    Result: Charged at a General Court Martial (GCM).  We negotiated the case down to a misdemeanor level (Special Court Martial) and a low sentence cap.
    Sentence: 4 months in jail, NO forfeitures    , E-1, BCD

  • April 2010 - U.S. v. Navy E-7 – Pacific Region (specific base undisclosed) - Retirement eligible client accused of stealing over $80,000 in BAH and OHA while claiming a location that his family did not live.  Client faced over 30 years in prison and loss of retirement of over $900,000.  We got involved immediately after the investigation was started and before charges were filed.  Client was pressured to "take a court martial deal" even though charges were not yet filed.
    Result: We refused to back down and would not accept any "deal."  The command eventually gave client NJP with minimal punishment.  He was eventually promoted and transferred to another base.

  • March 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-6 - Fort Lewis, Washington - Client charged with stealing over $100,000 in BAH and other allowances by using fraud and false statements.  He refused to plead guilty. Defended case with CPT Arthur Tsao. The command wanted 2 or more years in a PTA.
    Result: Client refused and at the same time requested a Chapter 10 administrative discharge, which was approved.  Avoided a Felony conviction, fines and jail time

  • February 2010 - U.S. v. Air Force E-3 - Pope AFB, NC - Client was accused of 3 different sets of misconduct. 1) He was accused of sexually assaulting a coworkers wife, indecent acts and pulling a knife on the husband. 2) He was accused of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for allegedly attacking his wife with a knife and choking her. He then violated a restraining order dozens of times. 3) He was also accused of sexually harassing multiple female coworkers and assaulting one by slapping her behind. Defended case with ADC Maj Jed Dorman at the Article 32 and at a contested jury trial.
    Result: No Felony conviction, dropped aggravated assault, NOT GUILTY of assaulting coworker and his wife and indecent acts, No sex offender registration. Convicted of some other allegations.
    Sentence: TIME SERVED (about 4 months), NO DISCHARGE, reduction, hard labor, forfeitures, reprimand

  • February 2010 - U.S. v. Army O-5 - Fort Gordon, GA - Client with over 20 years accused of forging rental agreements, submitting dozens of false travel vouchers and stealing tens of thousands of dollars in Government money. Defended case along with CPT Emeka Nwofili. Client originally faced over 70 years in prison.
    Result: Not guilty on 4 allegations. Guilty of 2 allegations.
    Sentence: 30 days in jail, a reprimand, forfeitures, a fine and NO DISCHARGE. Client will retire in March 2010.
  • February 2010 - U.S. v. Air Force E-4 - Hanscom AFB, MA - (This case is a continuation of the August 2009 case below). Client was accused of rape, sex assault, adultery, and other crimes. The Government dropped charges on the eve of trial, gave client an Article 15 and then tried to separate client with an Other than Honorable at a board, assuming it would be easy after the Article 15 conviction. Mr. Waddington fought this case without a military lawyer in front of a board of 5 officers and 2 enlisted airmen. Client's Commander, a LTC, testified that he wanted the client discharged with a negative discharge and did not want him in the unit. Of course, we fought back.
    Result: The board RETAINED the airmen on Active Duty. NO DISCHARGE.
  • January 2010 - U.S. v. E-7 - Undisclosed training base - Married client accused of aggravated sexual assault and various other sex offenses against a trainee. DNA evidence implicated client. Successfully fought the charges at the Article 32. Government went against the Article 32 recommendation. Mr. Waddington and CPT Emeka Nwofili prepared for a jury trial and discovered impeachment evidence on the key witnesses.
    Result: Two days before the scheduled trial, the prosecution dropped all charges. ALL CHARGES DISMISSED BY THE GENERAL.
  • January 2010 - U.S. v. Army E-6 - San Diego Navy Base, California - Client charged with stealing and conspiracy to steal over $500,000 in drill pay.  Client signed 2 long confessions admitting to being part of a wide-ranging plot at his Las Vegas Reserve unit.  Navy initially demanded 7 years of confinement. Defended case with LT Becky Oldfield-Frey.
    Result: We fought the article 32 and demanded a jury trial.  In the end the Government agreed to a much more reasonable deal.
    Punishment: 14 months of confinement,E-1, TFPA, BCD
  • November 2010 - Shaw Air Force Base, SC - Client convicted of drug trafficking in GA civilian court. Client was also accused of possessing and distributing CP on his computer. We avoided a court martial on the drug and CP charges. The Air Force tried to discharge the client with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. Air Force defense lawyer told the client to waive the board with an OTH because "he had no chance of winning anything better than an Other than honorable." Client released the ADC. Mr. Waddington then fought the case in front of an officer board.
    Result: Client received a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge. Maintained most benefits.
  • October 2009 - U.S. v. Army E-5 - Yongsan Army Base, Korea - Soldier charged at a General Court Martial with 2 charges of Felony Aggravated Assault with Means Likely to Produce Death or Grievous Bodily Injury for allegedly beating 2 soldiers with an unopened beer bottle and False Official Statement. The two "victims" were severely injured and one was stabbed during the fight. Our client made numerous statements to CID and there was a video of the fight. Mr. Waddington and CPT Duane Kees pressed for a contested jury trial. A few days before the trial date, the Government agreed to drop the General Court Martial, drop the felony aggravated assault charges to misdemeanor assault charges, drop the false official statement, limit client's jail time to 30 days, agree to no discharge, and limit his reduction to 2 pay grades.
    Result : 30 days in jail, NO DISCHARGE, reduction to E-3, $300 per month for 3 months. No Felony conviction. Client will return to unit by the end of Oct 2009.

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.