Click here to see Court Martial Results Part 1
Click here to see Court Martial Results 1(A)
Click here to see Court Martial Results 2
Click here to see Court Martial Results 3
Click here to see Court Martial Results 4
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
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
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
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).
RESULT: Client 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.
SENTENCE: NO DISMISSAL, 60 days in jail, forfeitures, and a reprimand.
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.
RESULT: 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.
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
SENTENCE: 30 days in jail, NO DISCHARGE, one grade reduction, a reprimand, and forfeitures.
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.
RESULT: ALL COURT MARTIAL CHARGES DISMISSED.
U.S. v. Air Force E-5 – Luke AFB, Arizona –
Client accused of Article 120 sexual assault and other offenses. He allegedly assaulted the wife of another airman. We were hired before charges were preferred and contacted OSI and the command to let them know our client intended to fight the charges. After several weeks of investigating, the command decided to not charge our client. Instead, he was given an Article 15 for sexual assault, which is almost unheard of.
Client avoided jail, a conviction, sex offender registration and only received a one grade reduction and forfeiture of pay.
Client served in at Fallujah, Iraq with the II MEF. He was accused of receiving over $180,000 in bribes and jewelry from contractors in Iraq in exchange for awarding contracts. NCIS spent 4 years and tons of money traveling around the world to build a case.NCIS cherry picked evidence, twisted witness testimony and withheld favorable evidence in order to build a stronger case. Because almost all of their evidence was hearsay that came from shady witnesses, the Government knew that they would have a difficult time winning at a court martial. Instead, they took client to a separation board and presented over 500 pages of documents, almost all of which was hearsay. They also played a NCIS interview in which the NCIS agent had a coached witness repeat scripted answers implicating our client.Then, they presented a lengthy Naval Audit Service Audit showing supposed “irregularities” in our client’s contracts. We were denied the ability to confront and cross examine our accusers because the Government would not bring them to the board. Several other Marines facing the same allegations were convicted at court martial. Mr. Waddington and Captain Paul Isherwood fought the case in front of an officer board with one enlisted member.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALLEGATIONS, RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY
U.S. v. Air Force E-5 – Dover Air Force Base, Delaware –
Charges: Rape, Burglary, False Official Statement x 2 Michael Waddington fought this case against Captain Andrew Cherkasky. Our client was innocent and was eventually acquitted of Rape after a contested jury trial.In this case, Captain Andrew Cherkasky refused to allow the defense to record the testimony of the alleged victim at the Article 32 investigation. Initially, the Article 32 investigating officer authorized the defense to record the hearing. Cherkasky objected and fought to stop the hearing from being recorded.The prosecution knew that if we recorded the testimony of their alleged “victim,” then we would expose her lies and impeach her at trial. If the Government could prevent the defense from impeaching their star witness, then they would have a better chance of winning a conviction.In this case, our client was retained on Active Duty by the jury. Upset about the loss, the prosecution continued to pursue our client until they forced him out of the Air Force.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, NG BURGLARY, NG OF ONE CHARGE OF LYING, GUILTY OF FALSE OFFICIAL AND UNLAWFUL ENTRY
SENTENCE: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, NO SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION, 2 grade reduction, reprimand, forfeitures
U.S. v. Army O-3 – Fort Gordon, Georgia –
Client was a male nurse that was accused of numerous Article 120 sexual assault charges, dereliction of duty and other offenses. He allegedly repeatedly sexually assaulted a female patient that was under his care.We were hired before the charges were filed and began to build our defense. After charges were preferred, Mr. Waddington and CPT Sean Fitzgibbon contested the charges at the Article 32. 14 days after the 32, the General dismissed all charges and specifications.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER ARTICLE 32
U.S. v. Army E-6 – Fort Hood, Texas –
Client was accused of attempted forcible sodomy, various Article 120 sexual assault charges, and maltreatment of a subordinate. He allegedly sexually assaulted an E-4 female, numerous times, while on a funeral detail. Several of her friends, including one of the soldiers on the funeral detail, testified against our client.Mr. Waddington and CPT Joe Marcee contested all of the charges in front of an 8 member enlisted jury.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES & SPECIFICATIONS
U.S. v. Marine Corps E-4 – Marine Corps Base Hawaii (Kaneohe Bay) –
Client accused of aggravated sexual assault on a fellow Marine, false official statement to NCIS and adultery (client’s wife was a Marine). Client allegedly confessed to NCIS in writing and in a video taped statement, which were shown to the jury. NCIS and the USACIL crime lab found DNA evidence and semen. The alleged victim purportedly drank over 18 shots of tequila and numerous mixed drinks before she claims to have passed out.
Mr. Waddington, along with Capt Jason Morris, fought the case in front of an enlisted jury.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF THE SEX OFFENSE, NOT GUILTY OF LYING TO NCIS, GUILTY OF ADULTERY.
SENTENCE: No jail time, NO Discharge, 2 grade reduction, restriction, 45 days hard labor without confinement, forfeitures.
U.S. Navy E-5 – Bahrain Navy Base –
Client accused of DUI, hitting and killing a pedestrian with his car, hitting and dismembering another pedestrian, fleeing the scene and other charges. Mr. Waddington and his hard hitting co-counsel LT Jessica Pyle, battled the Government for over 7 months. Finally, the Government accepted a deal with a 2 year maximum. At the sentencing, the military judge sentenced the client to 8 years in prison (client will serve about 20 months).
RESULT: 2 years, DD, E-1, TFP
U.S. v. Navy O-3 – Norfolk, Virginia –
Client, a Navy Reserve officer, was charged with aggravated sexual assault (Article 120) on an enlisted female while stationed at Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras. He was also charged with sexual harassment, fraternization and conduct unbecoming regarding another female. He faced over 30 years in prison and sex offender registry.We contested the case at the Article 32 and impeached the motive and truthfulness of the alleged victim and exposed weaknesses in the Government’s case. Regardless, the 32 officer recommended a General Court Martial.
RESULT: After months of negotiating, client was allowed to resign and all charges were dropped.
U.S. v. Air Force O-5 – Hurlburt Field, Florida –
Client was accused of rape, conduct unbecoming an officer, assault, false official statement, and numerous other allegations. He faced life in prison, sex offender registration, loss of retirement, and other punishments. OSI conducted a massive, one-sided investigation, digging 8 years into client’s past, looking for anything they could use to convict him. They interviewed the client’s ex-wives, girlfriends, and even his children. They prepared a lengthy Report of Investigation. As usual, OSI wanted to push for charges. However, they did not conduct a background check into the supposed “victims” and did not interview key witnesses.Mr. Waddington and his ADC co-counsel investigated and presented the other side of the story to the command, which showed that the “victim” had serious mental health issues, a strong motive to lie and a history of similar false allegations. The SJA office declined to prosecute. Client received an Article 15 for false official statement and conduct unbecoming an officer. At the Article 15, the client contested the false official statement and was found Not Guilty. He admitted to the conduct unbecoming charge.
RESULT: No court martial charges. At Article 15, client received a fine.
U.S. v. Army E-2 – Okinawa, Japan (Torri Station & Kadena Air Base) –
Client accused of rape, aggravated sexual assault, breaking a no contact order multiple times, stalking, telling his SFC to “F$%$ Off” and other offenses. Mr. Waddington fought the case with CPT Ernesto Gapasin in front of an enlisted jury. The prosecution presented a sex assault nurse expert, a DNA expert and hundreds of texts messages from client that supposedly showed his guilt.
RESULT: Not Guilty of all sex charges, numerous other charges were dismissed. Found guilty of remaining charges.
SENTENCE: Time served, reduction to E-1, and a BCD.
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 squadron 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-1BOTTOM LINE: The client walked out of jail a free man with no discharge.
U.S. v. Army E-5 – Baumholder (Smith Barracks), Germany –
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 Mr. Waddington’s experience, the General/convening authority almost always follows the recommendation of the prosecution/SJA. In other words, if the prosecution wants to take the case to trial, then the General agrees. 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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
U.S. v. Navy E-7 – Phillipines/Japan (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.
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. The command wanted 2 or more years in a PTA. Defended case with CPT Arthur Tsao.
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.
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
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.
U.S. v. Air Force E-4 – Hanscom AFB, MA –
(This case is a continuation of the Hanscom 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.
U.S. v. E-7 – Fort Gordon, GA –
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.
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. Defended case with LT Becky Oldfield-Frey. Navy initially demanded 7 years of confinement.RESULT: We fought the article 32 and demanded a jury trial.
In the end the Government agreed to a much more reasonable deal.
SENTENCE: 14 months of confinement, BCD, E-1, TFPA
U.S. v. Air Force E-4 – Shaw Air Force Base, SC –
Client was 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.
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.
RESULT: 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.
SENTENCE: 30 days in jail, NO DISCHARGE, reduction to E-3, $300 per month for 3 months. No Felony conviction. Client will return to unit.
U.S. v. Air Force E-6 – Hanscomb AFB, Massachusetts –
At a General Court Martial, client was accused with rape, multiple sexual assaults, adultery, violation of a general order and other offenses. Mr. Waddington and co-counsel, Captain Wes Miller, aggressively prepared their case for trial. Client maintained his innocence throughout the case.3 days before the jury trial was scheduled to being, the General dismissed all charges.
RESULT: NO DISCHARGE, NO CONVICTION, NO JAIL TIME.
U.S. v. Navy E-4 – Sasebo Navy Base, Japan –
Client charged with Rape, forcible sodomy and numerous sexual assaults. Sailor allegedly raped and sexually assaulted a supposedly drunken female sailor. In addition, sailor was accused of numerous good order and discipline charges. The charge sheet was several pages long. We contested the charges at an Article 32 along with co-counsel, LT James Toohey.
RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER ARTICLE 32.
U.S. v. Army E-6 – Tripler Army Medical Center –
Soldier was falsely accused of raping a co-worker (a vindictive ex-girlfriend). CID tried to dig up evidence to support the story of the supposed victim and tried to manipulate the investigation to build their case. CID only took sworn statements from witnesses that helped their case and turned away key witnesses that proved the innocence of the client. We were retained before charges were filed.
RESULT: NO charges filed. Soldier received a LOR, which is being contested.
U.S. v. Army E-8(P) – Yongsan Army Base, Korea –
Client accused of raping an E-3 soldier in his company, adultery, and fraternization. CID & prosecutors claimed that his DNA & semen were found on the alleged victim. Numerous witnesses claimed to see client running from the girl’s room late at night. Client proclaimed his innocence and refused to take plea deal.Prosecution dropped the rape charge two weeks before trial but proceeded to trial on remaining charges. Mr. Waddington & military lawyer CPT Adam Jonasz contested the charges in front of an enlisted jury.
RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES
U.S. v. Army E-6 – Camp Humphreys/K-16, Korea
Client charged with 2 separate rape allegations, indecent acts, kidnapping and false official statement. Faced life in prison. Prosecutor, played hard ball and tried to stack the deck against our client. He denied ALL defense witnesses but one and dug up former sexual partners of the accused dating back to high school to prove that client was a “serial rapist” and “violent sexual predator.”The prosecutor then brought numerous witnesses, an investigator, a Forensic Rape Expert and a Forensic Psychologist from the USA and numerous JAG prosecutors from around Korea to assist at trial in an effort to convict the accused. We fought back and contested all charges in front of an enlisted jury.