Criminal and Administrative Cases

Below are real cases that our lawyers have defended. Note: These are real case results from cases that Michael and Alexandra have personally defended. However, all cases are different. A success in one case does not guarantee success in another similar case. We do not guarantee a certain outcome, to do so violates the Rules of Professional Responsibility. In addition, the results of the case often depend on the facts, whether the client follows our advice and the stage of the proceeding at which our services are retained. Please call us with any questions or for clarification.

THESE RECENT CASES SHOW THAT IN THE MILITARY, THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY UNLESS & UNTIL THE SERVICE MEMBER CAN PROVE HIS OR HER INNOCENCE, ESPECIALLY IN A SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE. The accused needs the highest powered defense possible, even if they are innocent. Otherwise, their rights will be trampled and they may end up in jail.

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. Army E-4 – Fort Gordon, GA

We fought this case for over 18 months. Our client and 6 other soldiers were accused of gang raping an enlisted soldier at the Baymont Inn Hotel outside of Fort Gordon, GA. The case became known as the “Baymont 8 Gang Rape” and it pulled in lawyers from across the United States. Our client faced charges of rape, false official statement, and others. He faced life in prison, sex offender registration, a dishonorable discharge, and a Federal Conviction.

RESULT: All court martial charges dismissed. Client receives Summary court for lying to CID (a summary court is a non-criminal proceeding similar to NJP or Mast).


U.S. v. Army E-6 – Fort Polk, LA/Kandahar, Afghanistan

redbheans-fortpolk

Our client, a Combat Engineer, was accused of raping two women (a US Army soldier/JAG Paralegal and one British citizen). Later, the prosecution claimed that he sexually assaulted two additional people, for a total of four alleged victims. He faced 14 different allegations, over 100 years in prison, and sex offender registration. Mr. Waddington and CPT Brian Greco defended this case.

Our theory: The two primary victims were scorned ex-lovers out for revenge.

This trial was like an episode of Dr. Phil mixed with Jerry Springer. In and out of court, there was crying, lying, and a lot of drama. We had a local stripper in the audience, a bunch of British witnesses that hated each other, and the British victim kept accusing the defense of intimidation, because we were laughing with our client outside of court at the smoke pit , which was completely authorized. She was peeping out the window and was offended by us laughing. The prosecutor then scolded us for laughing in public and asked us to stay hidden.  Our response was to laugh even louder.

When the trial began, the prosecutor was literally crying during her opening statement while pointing at my client and calling him a rapist.

The two alleged rape victims took 3-4 hours EACH to tell their stories. It was painfully boring. The prosecutor kept asking, “How did you feel?” about every minor detail of the case.  While how they “felt” was not relevant, the defense intentionally did not object. Instead, we let them blab on and on to the point where the jury stopped listening. 90 minutes into their testimony, the jury stopped paying attention and some jurors were falling asleep. Few people c

fortpolk-alexandriaairport

an pay attention to 4 hours of fake sobbing. After the first box of tissues, the jury tuned out.

On cross-examination, these witnesses were quickly cut to shreds when confronted with lie after lie. After being impeached with numerous blatant lies, one victim’s neck (the JAG paralegal) started to twitch. It would have been amusing, but for the fact that our client sat falsely accused of heinous crimes.

During Mr. Waddington’s closing argument, the paralegal “victim” brought her husband into the court to watch. When Mr. Waddington talked about all of her lying and cheating, she ran out of the courtroom in tears, in the middle of the closing. Apparently, she never told her husband about her love affair with my client or the fact that she was bragging about my client’s sexual prowess to fellow soldiers, while she was with her husband.

The jury deliberated for about 60 minutes. The defense witnesses went out to party and Mr. Waddington went to his hotel to rest for his next case the following Monday in Norfolk, VA.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES


U.S. v. Army E-4 – Fort Stewart, GA

A soldier, who was locked up in pretrial confinement, was almost through his guilty plea. He was pleading guilty to rape, aggravated assault, and violating a no-contact order. His mother came to watch his guilty plea and stopped him in the middle. She demanded that he seek a second opinion.

His mother called our firm and spoke with Alexandra. While we don’t guarantee results, we let his mother know that we guarantee that we will fight for our clients. We were hired and went to work because the trial was 30 days away.

This case was a unique challenge because our client had signed a written confession admitting to rape and spousal abuse. He also made a videotaped confession to CID. After looking at the alleged “confessions,” our only defense was to attack the confessions head on. Winning a case with one confession is nearly impossible. Here, we had two confessions, one written and one video recorded.

The challenge: How do we challenge multiple rape confessions in front of a jury without losing credibility.

As Sun Tzu said, in The Art of War: “In war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.”

We carefully studied the “confessions,” learned about our client’s personality, analyzed the victim’s story, and reviewed CID regulations and training manuals.

Mr. Waddington, working with Army defense lawyer, CPT Rachel Large, plotted a defense attacked the alleged victim’s story and the CID interrogation. We showed that the CID interrogators violated their own policies and rules, they used lies, trickery, and deceit, and they preyed on our client’s gullibility.

At the beginning of the trial, we had a 5% chance of success. When the alleged victim and CID agents testified, we hammered them on cross-examination. Then, our odds went to 50/50. In the closing, we swung for the fences.

RESULT: Not guilty of all sex crimes, false official statement. Guilty of violating a no-contact order.

SENTENCE: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, Reprimand, reduction to E-3.


U.S. v. Navy E-5 –Naval capriicecreamcourtmartialitalySupport Activity Naples, Naples, Italy

Our client was accused of three specifications of sexual assault against two alleged victims. He faced 60+ years in prison, a DD, and sex offender registration. Mr. Waddington and LT Bryan Barletto fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury. The Navy brought in two experienced prosecutors, including a Senior Special Victim Prosecutor, known for being an extremely aggressive lawyer.

Trying to wear us down, they yelled “objection” to most of the questions posed by the defense. They objected throughout the opening statement, the cross examinations, and the direct examinations. Mr. Waddington has encountered this cheap tactic many times and he flipped it, like a dagger, and stuck it straight into the heart of the prosecution’s case. By the end of the trial, it looked like the prosecution was hiding evidence and misleading the jury. In his closing argument, Mr. Waddington called out the prosecution’s weak case and dirty tactics… apparently, the jury agreed.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES.

Instead of his client going to prison, Mr. Waddington, his client, and his client’s family traveled to the island of Capri for a day of sightseeing, boating, and eating Italian ice cream (gelato).Click here to read what our client had to say about our representation.


U.S. v. Air Force CW2 – Fort Gordon, GA (this case took over two years)

This case is disgraceful. It shows that without proper legal representation, a false allegations can ruin your life. Even if you prove that the allegation is false, the military can still try to destroy you.

Our African American client was a married Warrant Officer. A white female Army Reserve NCO accused him of rape. This case was vigorously defended for over two years by Alexandra, Michael, and PJ Campanaro, who handled the GA State case.

STORY 1:

She claimed that an “unknown black man” broke into her home and violently raped and beat her. She had injuries and DNA evidence to support the allegation. Our client was arrested by Georgia police and was investigated by Army CID. To make matters worse, the alleged victim’s  wife was in our client’s unit.

Our client made no statement to the police and hired our firm. We quickly got the true story and our client provided us with videos of his consensual sexual activity with the “victim.” In reality, he was having an affair with her. After a few months, she began asking him for money to pay for gas and her phone bill. He obliged. Then, she demanded that he give her $7,000 to pay for in vitro fertilization. Our client refused. That is when she made the false police report. She even had a “Go Fund Me” page soliciting money for the pregnancy.

When we presented the sex videos to the GA police, they dropped the charges. We didn’t present all of the evidence, just the videos.

In the sex videos, it was clear that she knew our client and they had an ongoing consensual sexual relationship. She fabricated the entire story.

Did the Army do the right thing? Continue reading….

Keep in mind, the Army teaches that alleged “victims” should never be questioned or doubted. They must be believed.

When they got the sex videos, CID informed the false victim. Instead of confronting her or charging her with perjury, they helped her to come up with a different story.

STORY 2:

Our client forced her into a sexual relationship and then forced her to become a prostitute. She said that he recorded the sex videos without her permission (which is a felony). She now claimed to be deeply traumatized by the sex videos. These videos show two people engaging in consensual sex and prove that she made a false rape allegation.

We also had social media/text evidence that showed that she initiated the relationship and that they were on friendly terms. This evidence proved that she was not a sex slave. When she learned of the additional evidence, she changed her story again.

STORY 3:

They had sex, but she desperately wanted a baby and he used her emotional weakness against her. The sex was not consensual because she only did it because she thought he may be able to help her get a baby.

Instead of stopping the madness, the Army gave our client an Article 15 for adultery. They included the CID rape investigation as part of the packet, knowing the rape allegation was completely false.

Then, then initiated a separation. Again, they included the false rape allegations as evidence against our client.

The separation was based on various factors, including adultery, conduct unbecoming (for having sex with a soldier’s wife), filming the sex, and various other allegations.

Mr. Waddington traveled to Augusta to fight the allegations at the board. However, at the board, the prosecution did not call the alleged victim or her ex-wife (the victim divorced her wife and married a man during this process). The prosecution’s case was based on the CID file and the sex videos. We were not able to cross-examine the false victim or her wife at the board.

The board recommended a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge. The fight continued. Before the discharge was approved, an effort was made to allow our client to medically retire.

RESULT: CLIENT WAS ABLE TO MEDICALLY RETIRE.

The false “victim” remains in the Army and won soldier of the year after her false allegation was exposed. She is considered a hero and survivor. She is seen as a role model by her peers, although she falsely accused a fellow soldier of rape and perjured herself. No action was taken for perjury, false reports, or false official statement. She now claims to be a victim of Military Sexual Trauma (MST) and will be able to get lifetime service connected disability based on her false rape allegation.

Remember, her original story. An “unknown black man” broke into her house and violently raped and beat her. She relied on racism and prejudice and the Army fell for it. If you are a minority service member accused of a sex crime, especially if the “victim” is white, then you face an uphill battle. Even if you are 100% innocent and prove your innocence, many will still believe that you are guilty.  We see this every day. It is a fact of life.

The idea that a white woman would never lie about rape has been around for years. The book/movie, To Kill a Mockingbird, deals with this issue. We encourage you to watch the movie or read the book. In this story, a black man was convicted of rape, despite his innocence and then lynched by an angry mob the next day. We see this fact pattern play out in military courts across the USA. While, no-one is literally lynched, many innocent lives are destroyed by this process. The DoD sexual assault program feeds into this problem because they teach service members, in mandatory training, that a woman would never lie about being sexually assaulted. They teach that anyone who questions a rape allegation is “victim blaming” and “slut shaming.” Lawyers that defend service members (like our lawyers) are commonly accused of being “sexists” and “misogynists,” simply because they do their job and seek the truth behind sexual assault allegations. Some allegations are true, some are false, and often the truth is in the middle. Prosecutors and investigators have a duty to seek the truth. In realty, they seek convictions and bend the truth. A skilled defense lawyer is your last line of defense in a world were you are deemed Guilty no matter what.


U.S. v. Army E-7 – Shaw Air Force Base, SC/Pensacola, FL

Client was TDY in Florida for a training mission with the Air Force. His all male team of NCOs went to McGuire’s Pub and the International Lounge for dinner and drinks. One of his team members, a male E-7 (Warrant Officer Candidate), invited a female E-4 to join the guys for drinks. As you can imagine, this story does not end well. The Warrant Officer was trying to hook up with the E-4, but the alleged victim was more interested in our client.

The next day, the male E-7 accused our client of sexually assaulting, harassing, and maltreating the female E-4 at the bar and in her room. Witnesses found our client in the E-4’s room and intervened. The E-4 claimed sexual assault and the other NCOs ganged up on our client. The Warrant Officer claimed that our client forcibly removed her breast from her shirt, groped her, and forced himself into her room.

Mr. Waddington and CPT Joseph Piasta fought the case in front of an enlisted jury.

At trial, we exposed the Warrant Officer as a lying dirtbag. The other NCOs crumbled under cross-examination and the alleged victim was shown to be a drama queen and exaggerator.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX CHARGES, Guilty of one specification of fraternization

SENTENCE: NO DISCHARGE, 30 days in the local brig, No Reduction in Rank


US v. 1LT – Fort Riley, KS

Our client was accused of being involved in an Army recruitment scam.

According to CBS News,

“It is the largest criminal investigation in the history of the United States Army — an after shock caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Running short of soldiers, the Army National Guard came up with a scheme called the Recruiting Assistance Program which paid a $2,000 bonus to members of the Guard who brought in a new recruit. A total of 105,000 soldiers got those bonuses, but some of them scammed the system by claiming to bring in recruits they had never met. Eighty soldiers have pleaded guilty or been convicted, and another 60 remain under indictment. Some soldiers claim they did nothing illegal and are being made scapegoats for a recruiting program the Army admits was badly mismanaged from the start.”

As we do in every case, we went on the offensive and prepared a defense for our client. Before the Army preferred charges, we reached out to the command and pleaded our case. The Battalion Commander and Command Sergeant Major, based on the evidence, supported our client and helped fight to clear his name.

RESULT: No charges preferred. No GOMOR or NJP/Mast. He is still serving on Active Duty and was promoted to Captain.


U.S. v. Coast Guard E-7 – Juneau, AK

Our client was accused of two specifications of maltreating/sexually harassing a female E-4 and drunk and disorderly conduct. The allegations stemmed from a TDY trip to a remote area of Alaska to teach Native American villagers about water safety (The Kids Don’t Float Program). While in the village, a volcano erupted and grounded all air traffic. They were stuck, sharing a hotel room, where excessive drinking and craziness occurred.

Mr. Waddington and LT Warner Butkus fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury. On direct examination, the alleged victim told a harrowing story of how she was trapped for four days in a freezing remote village, with no means of communication, and was forced to share a hotel room with our out of control client. Her version sounded like Stephen King’s The Shining.

The alleged victim claimed that she ran from our client’s drunken assault and locked herself into her room. But, the lock didn’t work so she quickly barricaded herself inside of her room using a large dresser as he screamed through the door and tried to get in. As a result, she alleges that she suffered serious mental suffering. The story was compelling because she was a brilliant actress. However, phone records don’t lie and it is difficult to lie when being cross-examined.

When Mr. Waddington cross-examined her, her story fell apart and she was exposed as a melodramatic exaggerator. She was forced to admit that:

-She had a cell phone and wi-fi and communicated with her Army E-6 boyfriend during the supposed assault. She told him everything was going well.

-She was chain smoking cigarettes throughout the evening and the next day with our client.

-She buying drinks for our client.

-The next day, she went to a museum, lunch, dinner, and tried to watch a movie at the theater alone with our client

-She bought our client alcohol on the flight home…. and much more.

Our client testified and admitted that they were drinking whisky and they were both hammered.

RESULT: NOT Guilty of maltreatment, Guilty of drunk and disorderly

SENTENCE: One grade reduction, NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE


U.S. v. Army E-4 – Fort Benning, GA

When we were hired on this case, our client faced allegations of sexual assault and desertion terminated by apprehension. He was gone for over 550 days before he was arrested and returned to military custody. He was looking at over 35 years in prison, sex offender registration, and a dishonorable discharge. Our goals were to avoid a sex offender registration and lengthy confinement.

The sexual assault charge was dropped prior to referral of the charges. Our client then submitted a Chapter 10, request for a discharge in lieu of court martial, with an Other Than Honorable Discharge (OTH). This request was denied by the Commanding General. We had no choice but to fight the case.

As the trial date approached, we were able to get the prosecution to dismiss the Desertion charge so long as our client would admit to AWOL.

At the sentencing hearing, Mr. Waddington and CPT James Purcell presented witnesses from our client’s chain of command that testified that he was a solid duty performer since his return to active duty. We asked the Judge to allow our client to soldier back and finish his military service. The judge gave him a second chance.

SENTENCE: RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY – NO DISCHARGE, Reduction to E-3, 90 days in jail


U.S. v. Army E-5 – Camp Arifjan, Kuwait and Germany

Our client was deployed to Kuwait and returned to Germany on R&R. While in Germany, he went to an MWR sponsored Oktoberfest trip. He got on a bus with soldiers and family members and headed to a beer festival. On the trip, he met the sister of another soldier and started to flirt. By the end of the trip, they were heavily making out on the bus.

After the trip, the woman accused him of rape. He faced life in prison, sex offender registration, and a DD. He immediately demanded a lawyer and hired our firm.

Alexandra González-Waddington started building the defense and investigating the case. She worked with our client’s command to present evidence that showed our client’s innocence.

RESULT: The case was dropped. Client PCS’d to the USA. No NJP/Article 15. No court martial.


U.S. v. Army O-3 – Fort Buchanan, PR and Fort Rucker, AL

Our client was accused of stealing over $91,000 in housing allowance from the US government (both OHA and BAH while stationed in Puerto Rico). He was also accused of false official statement and teaching an E-7 coworker how to defraud the Government. He faced over 65 years in prison, a dismissal, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances. At trial, our goal was to mitigate the damage and save our client from a lengthy prison sentence.

Mr. Waddington and CPT Brennan Breeland fought the case in front of an officer jury packed with senior Army Aviators. The jury consisted of Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels, a tough audience. The prosecution called an E-7 who testified that our client confessed to stealing OHA and taught him how to do it. Also, experts from finance and housing explained that the money was stolen through a bogus lease. Several witnesses from Puerto Rico, including the landlord, testified against our client. Three witnesses stated that our client admitted to receiving OHA that he was not entitled to. Additionally, the prosecution presented incriminating emails from our client.

We attacked each witness head on and impeached them with their lies and biases.

During the trial, we got three charges dismissed and the jury found him not guilty of teaching the E-7 how to defraud the Government, despite the E-7’s direct testimony. In the end, our client was convicted of stealing OHA, BAH, and false official statement.

Going into sentencing, he faced 35 years in prison. We argued for no jail time.

SENTENCE: NO JAIL TIME. $20,000 fine and a dismissal.


U.S. v. Air Force O-5 – Andrews AFB, MD

Our client was an Air Force Lt Col accused of receiving a full time Air National Guard pay check while receiving a full time Air Reserve paycheck, at the same time. Meanwhile, he was flying full time for Jet Blue Airways. Basically, he was getting two O-5 Active Duty pay checks and a full time Jet Blue pilot pay check.

He was also accused of lying to the Air Force and Jet Blue about his employment and of making a false official statement about his military status to Jet Blue in a formal hearing. In addition, he was accused of calling in sick for Jet Blue to fly military missions.His charges included multiple counts of larceny (over $60,000), false official statement, and conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman. He was facing over 65 years in prison, a dismissal, loss of retirement, and total forfeitures of pay.

He had served about 20 years. At the time of trial, his retirement was worth over $3 million. Our client, a father of young children and family man, wanted to avoid years in jail. He submitted a Resignation in Lieu of Court Martial and agreed to give up his $3 million retirement and take an Other than Honorable Discharge.

The Air National Guard fought against the resignation and demanded that he face court martial. They thought he would get 2-3 years in prison and lose his retirement.

The Secretary of the Air Force denied his request and pushed the case to a trial.

They tried to push him into a plea deal. Based on the evidence, we had NO chance of an acquittal. We were going down on most of the charges. But, the deal offered by the Air Force was garbage and we knew that we had a better chance with a jury.

Michael Waddington and Captain Allen Abrams prepared for battle. Our goal was to save his retirement and avoid years in prison. We fought the charges in front of a senior panel of Colonels.

The findings were mixed. Going into sentencing, he faced 30 years in prison and a dismissal.

RESULT: We fought the charges in front of the jury and got mixed findings.

SENTENCE: NO DISCHARGE. He was able to retire. 14 days in jail (he only served a few days and was released), a reprimand, and a fine.


U.S. v. Army E-5 – Fort Leonard Wood, MO

Client, a military policeman, was accused of getting drunk and sexually assaulting a female cab driver in her cab on Fort Leonard Wood as she drove him to his barracks. She pulled a knife on him and called the police. He was charged with sexual assault and various other crimes. He faced a maximum of 20 years in prison, a Federal felony conviction, a DD, and sex offender registration. Our goal was to avoid a felony conviction, jail time, and sex offender registration.

Mr. Waddington demanded a jury and prepared for trial. A few weeks before the trial, the government agreed to give our client a discharge in lieu of court martial.

RESULT: Administrative separation, No jail time, No sex offender registration, No felony conviction


U.S. v. Army O-6 – Fort Wainwright (Fairbanks, AK)

Our client was charged with multiple charges of sexually assaulting an enlisted man’s wife.

RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED A WEEK BEFORE HIS GENERAL COURT MARTIAL TRIAL


U.S. v. Coast Guard E-7 – USCG Sector Miami, FL, Station Key West (tried in Norfolk, VA)

Details coming soon – Over 20 allegations of rape, abuse, threats, no-contact order violations, obstruction of justice, and more. Multiple written and recorded confessions.

Mr. Waddington and LT Jen Buyske fought this case in front of an enlisted jury and it was a blood bath.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX & ABUSE CHARGES, convicted of no-contact order violations and obstruction of justice.

SENTENCE: Reduction to E-6, time served. No discharge.


US v. Army E-6 – Fort Wainwright, AK

Our client was accused of sexually maltreating a female subordinate while TDY at Fort Jackson, SC. We fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury. During the trial, we exposed the alleged victim with her diary and receipts that contradicted her allegations and exposed her as a vindictive liar.

RESULT: Not Guilty of all Charges


U.S. v. Air Force E-8 – Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska

IMG_4994Our client, a 24-year veteran, was planning to retire when he was targeted by Air Force OSI for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman he dated (this charge was later dropped). OSI then contacted our client’s ex-wives, past girlfriends, and any other woman that they could find.

They told these women that our client was a rapist and they asked these women for help getting “the rapist” off the street. They were trying to create more victims in order to strengthen their case. Mr. Waddington has seen this technique used by CID, NCIS, OSI, and CGIS.

OSI repeatedly called his ex wives, filling their heads with lies in an attempt to get them to testify. Based on what they told OSI, multiple women were listed as sex assault victims. Some remembered late night sex with our client and sex after a night at the bar, OSI convinced them that it was rape.

Mr. Waddington was the second civilian lawyer on the case. He was hired after our client was told that he had no chance of winning. The client released his initial civilian lawyer and ADC.

When Mr. Waddington and co-counsel Captain Diane Ingram took over the case, they were facing an uphill battle.

At trial, the accused fought all of the charges in front of an officer panel. The defense presented testimony from the accused and forensic psychologist Dr. Jeffrey Younggren, who explained how memory is fragile and can easily be contaminated by improper OSI interviews. On cross examination, the defense skillfully took apart the testimony of the alleged victims, piece by piece. The jury deliberated for a little over 4 hours.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES


U.S. v. Army E-8 – Okinawa, Japan/Kadena Air Base

Our client was an Army E-8 that was caught in the notorious “To Catch a Predator” sting operation that NCIS has been running in Okinawa Japan. Our client was charged with Attempted Sexual Assault of a Child and numerous other charges.

This operation has snagged over 80 service members stationed in Japan. All but one of the cases brought to trial resulted in convictions. Going in, we knew our chance of a full acquittal, based on the evidence, was highly unlikely.

In the sting operation, NCIS used Craig’s List to attract military men. Then, after several weeks, they claim that they are a minor (under 16 years old) and start to engage in sexual chats. Finally, NCIS lures the service member to a house on Kadena Air Base to meet with the “minor female” for sex.

The “minor” is actually a female NCIS agent that is pretending to be 14 or 15 years old.

Our client was chatting with the fake underage female for weeks. The conversation turned sexual and she invited him to meet her at a house on Kadena. When he went to the house, NCIS tried to tackle and arrest him. Our client fought the NCIS agents and threw several of them to the ground.

He was eventually arrested and charged. They used evidence from his phone, Craig’s list, and computer chat logs to back up the charges. The prosecution wanted a plea deal that would limit his sentence to 3 years in prison.

Our client learned that the average sentence on Okinawa for these same crimes was 3-5 years.

Our client rejected the plea deal and chose to fight the case in front of an enlisted jury.

At trial, Mr. Waddington and CPT Aaron Matthew attacked the sneaky investigative tactics used by NCIS. In the end, our client was convicted of several charges.

At sentencing, we presented evidence in mitigation.

SENTENCE: The jury sentenced our client to NO PUNISHMENT. After the trial, Mr. Waddington and the client went to eat pancakes and visited the Japanese WWII bunkers.


U.S. v. Navy E-4 – San Diego Navy Base

militaryattorneys-san-diego-navy-base

Our client was accused of sexually assaulting a female sailor in her quarters. Our client maintained his innocence and refused to plead guilty. As the trial date approached, the defense lawyers, Mrs. Gonzalez-Waddington, and CDR William Weiland, prepared for trial.

Our goals were to: avoid a Federal conviction, avoid sex offender registration, avoid jail time, and allow our client to leave the Navy with an Honorable Discharge and his GI Bill benefits intact.

On the eve of trial, the prosecution agreed to drop all court martial charges if our client agreed to fight the case at NJP/Captain’s Mast.

RESULT: ALL COURT MARTIAL CHARGES DISMISSED, CLIENT RETAINED

No Federal Conviction, No Sex Offender Registration, No Jail Time, and our client’s GI Bill is intact.


U.S. v. Coast Guard E-5 – USCG Base Kodiak, Alaska/The trial was in the Federal building in Juneau

IMG_4887 (1)Our client was accused of beating and raping his estranged wife and the CGIS investigator claims to have gotten a confession from our client.

Michael Waddington and Navy defense lawyer, LT Michael Ellis, fought the allegations in front of a mixed officer and enlisted jury. The defense impeached the alleged victim with numerous text messages and social media posts. The victim had tried to delete these messages but they were recovered by the defense.

The defense proved that our client’s wife had an affair with a local fishermen and then used the rape allegation in order to win child custody. The supposed victim and her fisherman boyfriend, named “Steve,” went to great lengths to try and destroy the life and career of our client.

Steve even threatened Mr. Waddington via text messages in an attempt to intimidate him on the eve of trial. Their plan backfired.

The defense presented numerous threatening texts to the jury at trial, including messages where Steve and the victim insulted the Coast Guard and threatened to destroy our client. (See sample screenshots below).

The jury deliberated for 50 minutes.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES

steve-coast-guard-threats.jpgsteve-coast-guard-insults


U.S. v. Navy E-6 – Norfolk Navy Base, VA

Our client was accused of sexually assaulting a fellow sailor. Mr. Waddington and Coast Guard attorney LT Nicholas Smith were prepared to fight the case in front of an enlisted jury.

Before opening statements, the defense learned that the prosecution had withheld part of the NCIS file that contained a witness statement that was very helpful to the defense. Supposedly, NCIS “forgot” to give us this witness statement. It just so happened that this statement helped to prove our client’s innocence.

The defense immediately called the mystery witness only to discover that he changed his story since talking to NCIS. Also, the O-6 commander recently hand selected him to be the victim’s Victim Advocate (VA). In other words, his duty was to protect and support the victim, no matter what. He was now tainted and refused to tell the truth.

The defense argued that the command blocked our client’s right to a fair trial by: 1) hiding crucial evidence; and 2) by intentionally tainting the witness’s testimony by making him the Victim Advocate for the victim (which is considered Unlawful Command Influence or UCI).

RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.


dc2016U.S. v. Army O-1 – Fort Bragg, NC tried at Fort McNair, Washington D.C.

Client was a medical student with 9 years of active Army service. While in a bitter divorce, his wife accused him of attacking her. He was charged with aggravated assault with means likely to produce death or previous bodily injury, assault, and conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. She claimed that he tried to choke her to death and smashed her head on a hardwood floor.

She took photos of the alleged injuries the next day, went to the emergency room that night, and reportedly told her neighbors, best friend, and mother. In addition to these witnesses, the prosecution brought in a renowned medical doctor and a forensic psychiatrist  to bolster their case.

IMG_4757Before the trial, the defense fought the conduct unbecoming charge and it was dismissed.

At trial, Mr. Waddington teamed up with Dan Conway and CPT Patrick Sandys and fought the case in front of an officer jury.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF Assault #1, NOT GUILTY of aggravated assault, convicted of one allegation of misdemeanor assault and battery.

SENTENCE:  Reprimand, forfeitures, 45 days restriction. NO DISMISSAL, NO JAIL TIME.


U.S. v. Navy E—5 – Miramar, CA – tried at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, CA

NOTE: This conviction was just overturned on appeal.

sandiegocourtmartiallawyersClient was accused of violently raping three women in four months. He faced life in prison. There was lots of DNA evidence, a confession, and forensics. Client’s original high powered attorney, a retired Marine Judge and Colonel told client he had “no chance” and would be convicted of all charges and get 30 years in prison.

He then negotiated a 5 year “deal of a lifetime.” Client then fired this lawyer and hired our firm. Mr. Waddington fought the case with LCDR Chad Temple and Marine Captain Yin in front of a Marine jury, although our client was Navy.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY of 2 out the 3 allegations. Convicted of 1 allegation.

SENTENCE: The Marine prosecutors demanded 20 years in prison. The jury gave him 1 year of confinement. Our client was happy.


U.S. v. Air Force E—4 – Volkel Air Base, Netherlands – tried at Spangdahlem AFB, Germany

Client was accused of running a large illegal marijuana farm for the Dutch mafia, drug trafficking, drug manufacturing, possession of drugs with the intent to distribute, and stealing over $48,000 in BAH/OHA.

When arrested he confessed to the police. In State and Federal court, he would have faced a mandatory sentence of 7-10 years in prison.

SENTENCE: 2 years


U.S. v. Army O-3 – Bagram Afghanistan/Fort McNair, Washington D.C.

We fought this case and won a full acquittal. Our client was falsely accused of violently raping a female O-3(P), the aide to a 2 Star General on the fast track to General, while in Afghanistan. The alleged rape was reported the next morning at the medical clinic. IMG_4303 The “victim” was a lying sociopath and we exposed her on the witness stand. She was also a veteran SARC (Sex Assault Response Coordinator) and a victim advocate. Although she reported the next morning, this is where her problems began. She deleted emails, social media posts, and text messages, thinking that they could not be recovered. She was wrong. Our client hired us immediately after being accused (and he did not talk to investigators). We then recovered emails, texts, and social media posts that showed that this BS victim was lying. We exposed some of this evidence to the prosecution, hoping that they would do the right thing and drop the charges. They did the opposite. They used the information that we provided to educate the lying victim and her lawyer. The victim again changed her story to explain away the damning evidence. This “victim” was very intelligent (the Army is currently paying for her Master’s degree at Columbia University in New York), charming, and conniving, like most sociopaths. Cross examining an expert liar, like her, can be a challenge, but Mr. Waddington used her arrogance to destroy her on the stand. The defense also showed that she went to the clinic to get STD and Plan-B anti-pregnancy medicine, because in Afghanistan, it is a crime for soldiers to have sex. Admitting to having sex could ruin her career. As a SARC, she knew that she could get medicine by claiming rape. Mr. Waddington and his bulldog co-counsel, CPT Patrick Sandys, suspected that the prosecutor and the SVC (special victim counsel) would likely double cross us, so we set a trap. We selectively exposed some, but not all of the text messages and social media that we had recovered. In the end, this “victim” perjured herself on the stand. But we had already set her and the unscrupulous prosecutors up. Once we locked her into her lies, we then revealed the additional evidence and demolished this liar in an ambush attack.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES.

For the first time ever, we included our client’s review on our results page. Here it is:

Micheal Waddington is hands down the best of the best! Selecting Micheal to represent me at my recent court martial was one of the best decision I could have made. Earlier on in my year long journey Micheal and his exceptional staff reached out to CID informing them that I represented and to leave me alone.

Micheal work diligently on my case developing case strategy, gathering evidence and filing critical motions which would eventually lead to my full acquittal of several specifications of Article 120, 134 and 92 charges.

Being tried at general court martial is one of the scariest things I have ever done in my life. Regardless of the evidence in the case the government is coming after you and you are in a fight for your life. Forget the innocent until proving guilty, I’m telling you from experience that you are Guilty until you can prove your innocent. Anyone that tells you any different has probably never faced 60 years, separation from their family and a complete erase of over a decade of exceptional service to their country. You are Guilty until you can prove that your innocent and that’s the bottom line! The government has unlimited resources and if you’re facing a sexual assault trail, then the alleged victim has at least three lawyers free of charge at his/her disposal. The Special Victim Counsel, Trial Counsel and the very vicious Special Victim Prosecutor. You my friend have a Trail Counsel whom you will only get assigned after charges have been preferred against you.

So much can go wrong for you during the investigation, charges being preferred and being assigned a trial counsel. As I stated earlier Micheal contacted CID special agents and advised them to leave me alone, with a good lawyer you wont be hounded by CID Agents who claim they want to help. CID is not your friend and they have absolutely no other desire than to aid the government’s team of lawyers in gathering information to convict you.

You need a Lawyer, I will warn you however that not all lawyers are equal and sometimes you get exactly what you pay for. If you are facing serious criminal charges than you need a lawyer that has the experience in dealing with such manners. If you are facing a sexual assault allegation there is a 95% or better chance that you are going to trail. I’m sorry to break the news to you but get it in your head I’m in a fight for my life and I’m going to trial. You need a lawyer that has tried cases to verdicts with successful results.

I’m telling you from months of research, that Micheal Waddington is the best lawyer that money can buy. If I had to do it all over again I wouldn’t trust my life in the hands of no one other than Micheal Waddington. At trail Micheal meticulously exploited all of the weaknesses in the government case. Micheal took the fight to the government and after cross examination of the first witness, he had to government in a defensive posture. At the end of the first day of my trail Micheal was so effective that the government was attempting to offer plea deals, I watched him laugh in their face!!!!

The second day I testified and was well prepared as a result of Micheal preparing me. Then came the scariest 3 hours of my life after the SVP made me look like the worst person that ever walked the planet, Micheal was up and he in a very calm manner changed the perspective of virtually everyone in the room in regards to facts in the case and the type of Soldier I had been and currently was.

Sitting in that waiting room for the decision to come down I remember walking past a table were in plain sight were two boxes containing leg irons and hand cuffs. I say yet again you are in a battle for your life. If it had not been for the exceptional work of Micheal, I wouldn’t be typing this messageI. I would be wearing those leg irons and convicted of a crime I didn’t even commit. You may think you can’t afford a civilian lawyer, I personally feel that you can’t not afford one! MICHAEL WADDINGTON!!!!


U.S. v. Air Force O-3 –Los Angeles Air Force Base, Los Angeles, CA

Our client was charged with using cocaine on several occasions and with lying on a Top Secret security clearance form. She faced 10 years in prison, a Federal Felony Drug Conviction, and a Dismissal. The prosecution had a 2 hour video of her alleged confession to OSI and a hand written OSI “confession.” OSI then dug up dozens of her friends and was able to bully a few officers into testifying against her. The prosecution refused any type of plea deal as well as a resignation with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. They forced us to trial. The Government was so confident that they would win, they were talking trash on the defense. This is not the first time that Mr. Waddington has taken on and shut down trash talkers. Left with no options and ready to fight, Mr. Waddington and his brilliant ADC co-counsel, Capt Stuart Saylor, took the fight to the Government and fought all charges in front of an officer jury. At the end of the trial, Mr. Waddington and Capt Saylor went out for drinks, our client and her father included.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES. Click here to read what our client had to say about our representation.


U.S. v. Army E-7 – Involved the following locations: Fort Bragg, Fort Gordon, Fort Sam Houston, Soto Cano Air Base, jury militarycourtmartiallawyer10.48200trial at Lackland AFB

Our male client, with 19.5 years towards retirement, was accused of sexually assaulting and sodomizing another male sergeant in Honduras, threatening to kill him, harassing him, and various other crimes.To strengthen their case, the Army conducted an extensive investigation into his past and accused him of additional crimes that spanned over twelve years  and included a total of six alleged victims, all male. Some of the charges included allegations that he assaulted and sexually harassed male trainees at Fort Gordon. Aside from sex offender registration and loss of retirement, our client faced over 60 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Mr. Waddington and TDS lawyer CPT Alfredo Foster, along with their client, conducted a sweeping investigation into the main “victims” in the case and uncovered a history of lying and  manipulation. We fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES


armysoldierssmoke

U.S. v. Army CW4 with 23 years of service – Wiesbaden and Kaiserslautern, Germany

Our client was accused of stealing approximately $250,000 in BAH and travel pay and false official statement for allegedly lying on financial documents. Our goal from the beginning was to save his retirement and avoid lengthy confinement.  Mr. Waddington and CPT Sam Landes fought the charges in front of an officer panel in the Kaiserslautern courtroom. The Government brought in numerous expert witnesses, investigators, and aggressive finance specialists to help prove their case. Our client faced 60 years in prison and risked losing his retirement, which was worth over $3.5 million.

RESULT: In the end, our client was convicted of some of the charges and acquitted of others.

SENTENCE: NO DISMISSAL, he will get to retire, 90 days in jail (he will serve 75), a reprimand, and forfeitures of $1,000 for 10 months.


U.S. v. Air Force E-6 – Travis AFB  – 

Our client, with 20 years towards retirement, was accused of raping a recruit and sexually harassing and assaulting other recruits and an NCO coworker. Mr. Waddington defended the case with Air Force defense counsel Captain Artie Vaughn.

Bottom line: after battling the prosecution for nearly 8 months and exposing the lies of several key witnesses, the case was dropped to a Special Court Martial four days before trial, all sex charges were dropped, and our client was allowed to retire in exchange for pleading guilty to a few misdemeanor charges.

RESULT: NO DISCHARGE, NO SEX OFFENDER CONVICTION, 30 DAYS IN JAIL (he faced a max of 60+ years in prison).


U.S. v. Army E-5 – Fort Leonard Wood, MO –

Client was accused of raping a soldier that had a Blood Alcohol Level of 0.242, filming the alleged victim without her consent, and various other charges. He faced over 55+ years in prison.militarycourtmartiallawyer13.22248Client made a statement to CID and gave CID a video that showed that the person was drunk.

Our client rejected a 3-year plea deal and decided to fight all of the charges at a General Court Martial in front of a Military Judge. Mr. Waddington and TDS attorney CPT Daniel Larson fought the case and our client was found not guilty of all of the charges, except for filming without consent.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEX ASSAULT CHARGES. Convicted of wrongful filming. NO DISCHARGE, 90 DAYS IN JAIL.


U.S. v. Air Force E-6 – RAF Menwith Hill/RAF Alconbury, England –

Client was accused of raping an Airman/coworker. In reality, the “victim” was a jilted ex-lover that was determined to ruin our client after he dumped her. Mr. Waddington traveled to England to fight the case along with ADC Captain VanMaasden. At the Article 32, we proved that the victim was flat out lying. She lied about her consensual relationship with the accused, she lied about the dates of the relationship, and she lied about sending him numerous sexually explicit photographs of herself.

To cover up her lies, she intentionally destroyed key evidence (photos, texts, emails, etc.) thinking that we would not be able to recover this evidence.usafdoverafbOSI had several opportunities to collect this evidence, which proved our client’s innocence, yet they did not collect it. Instead, they allowed the evidence to be destroyed.This evidence was crucial because it showed her numerous lies and proved that she simply wanted revenge on our client after he refused to continue their relationship.Our client hired us early in the investigation. Together, we worked to preserve and collect as much evidence as possible. Luckily, we got involved early or nearly all of this evidence would have been lost.

NOTE: This is a perfect example of why you should hire an experienced attorney immediately rather than waiting for charges to be preferred. If our client waited, we would likely not have gotten this outcome.

Guilty or innocent, if you sit back and wait to “see what happens,” there is a high probability that you are going to jail.

We used Facebook, social media, photographs, texts, chats, and phone records to prove our client’s innocence and to expose the lies. In the end, justice was served. However, this lying victim continues to serve in the Air Force and is still treated as a victim with no repercussions for making a false accusation. During the Article 32, we learned that the Air Force paid for the victim and a friend to travel from the USA to England. Supposedly, the “victim” was too stressed to make the trip alone. While the lawyers were preparing for the case, the “victim” was having a great time touring London and posting selfies of her laughing in front of historic sites such as Big Ben.

RESULT: ALL CHARGES DISMISSED AFTER THE  ARTICLE 32


US v Air Force E-5, RAF Lakenheath Air Force Base, England

Client was stationed in England and was receiving Overseas Housing Allowance (OHA). He was also receiving BAH for a home in Florida where his family was supposedly living. The Florida address was his wife’s father’s house. Meanwhile, the airman and his family were living in England. During this time, the airman’s wife was bragging to her friends about how she was receiving double housing. One of those neighbors was an OSI agent and the other was an airman’s wife.  The client never notified the command that his housing situation had changed and he filled out paperwork stating that his family lived in Florida.

He was accused of stealing, BAH/OHA fraud, dereliction of duty, and various other crimes and faced a maximum of 45 years, a dishonorable discharge.

Mr. Waddington flew to England to fight the charges in front of an enlisted jury. It was a tough fight because the prosecution used our client’s wife’s text messages and Facebook posts against him. His neighbors testified against our client and repeated all of the incriminating statements made by our client and his wife.

RESULT: Client was found Not Guilty of all charges except for one specification of dereliction of duty for not updating his housing paperwork

SENTENCE: 30 days in jail, No punitive discharge


fortknoxkylawyer

U.S. v. Army CW3 – Fort Knox, Kentucky

Client was accused of having an affair with the wife of an enlisted soldier in his brigade. Soldier received an Article 15, GOMOR, and a officer elimination/show cause board. Our client was less than a year from retirement. If we lost this board, then he would lose over $1,500,000.00 in retirement benefits . Mr. Waddington fought the case in front of an officer board and bombarded the board with dozens of documents and witnesses, including a Major General who testified on behalf of our client.

RESULT: RETAINED ON ACTIVE DUTY & WILL RETIRE


U.S. v. Air Force E-4 – Dover AFB, Delaware

Client was accused of sexually assaulting an allegedly drunk airman after a night of bar hopping in Boise (Mountain Home AFB) while TDY. Mr. Waddington and Major Andrea Hall fought the charges at the Article 32 and were able to show that the alleged victim’s story was full of holes, lies, and inconsistencies.

RESULT: THE CHARGE WAS DISMISSED AFTER THE  ARTICLE 32

militaryucmjdefenselawyer70

U.S. v. Navy O-3 – Norfolk Navy Base, Virginia

Client was accused of drugging and raping a high profile and well connected alleged victim. She was a CIA analyst, the wife of an Army doctor and officer, and the daughter of a retired Colonel that worked on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.In this battle, Mr. Waddington and LT Leila Mullican faced a tremendous amount of unlawful command influence. The alleged victim’s father was close friends with many Generals and Admirals that were “interested” in the outcome of the case. The deck was stacked, from the Article 32 until the trial.Another challenge faced by the defense team, was keeping our client’s name and his family out of the media.The defense assembled a team of rock stars with Dr. Thomas Grieger, a renowned forensic psychiatrist and one of the top experts in the business and forensic nurse, Mrs. Anita Brown, RN, MSN, SANA-A, WHNP-BC (the military’s go-to forensic Nurse Examiner). With this firepower, Mr. Waddington’s team took the battle to the enemy and fought the case in front of an officer jury.The Navy brought in their best prosecutor, who was notorious at Norfolk for his trials skills and his impressive win rate, one of the highest in the Navy.Note: This “victim” was one of the most cunning witnesses that Mr. Waddington has ever faced.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES


US v. O-3 – Randolph AFB, TX

Our client was an O-3 Air Force ROTC instructor. He was accused of luring ROTC cadets and students into his office for personal reasons, committing sex crimes, and using his position to abuse cadets/students. His charges included sexually assaulting a female cadet and fraternizing with and harassing another. He was facing over 50 years in prison, a dismissal, and sex offender registration.

We selected to fight the case in front of an officer panel and prepared for trial. Shortly before the trial we were able to negotiate a deal that was highly favorable to our client.

RESULT: Client pled guilty to fraternization and violation of Air Force policy. All sexual assault charges were dismissed.

SENTENCE: 30 days in jail, dismissal, no sex offender registration.


U.S. v. Air Force E-6 – Patrick Air Force Base/Dover AFB

Client was accused of repeatedly sodomizing and beating his step son. bestmilitarydefenseucmjdefenselawyer157This accusation was made during a heated child custody case and our investigation and a polygraph of our client proved them to be false.   However, we faced numerous witnesses that were willing to lie to win the case. Mr. Waddington and Capt Sarah Ali, backed by expert forensic psychologist Dr. Craig Rath, fought the case in front of an enlisted panel. We exposed the lies and absurdity of the allegations. On the stand, the kid, now 12, was very well coached. We got him to admit that his mother rehearsed his testimony and answers. After a careful cross examination, the alleged victim admitted that, “if he did not come up with something, then he would be in a lot of trouble and could go to jail” (regarding his own criminal misconduct – after which he accused our client of abusing him).

The jury deliberated for a little over an hour and acquitted our client of all charges. After the verdict was read, a brawl erupted in the courtroom. It took 6 Security Forces personnel (MPs) to break up the fight and make arrests.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES


U.S. v. Army O-1 – Fort Lewis, Washington (Joint Base Lewis-McChord)

Client was accused of raping and sexually assaulting a drunken female lieutenant after going out to a Seattle bar.bestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys9.53.58PMcopy We will not get into too many facts of the case, but the evidence was overwhelming, at least from the viewpoint of the prosecution. Our client even gave a 60 minute video taped statement to CID. Mr. Waddington and CPT Patrick Robinson fought the case in front of an officer jury. As usual, the jury was stacked with battalion and brigade commanders that had previously vowed (on their OER support forms) to stomp out sexual assault, whatever the cost. Knowing the jury’s biases and prejudices, the defense mounted a two pronged attack. First, we attacked the credibility of the alleged victim and second we mounted a scientific defense by calling one of the Army’s top forensic psychologists, LTC Marshall Smith. Dr. Smith gave brilliant testimony that explained how alcohol impacts memory and a person’s ability to perceive.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES

Note: After the trial, our client’s father treated the defense team, the family, and all of our supporting witnesses to dinner. This was a happy ending to a long, grueling ordeal for our client and Mr. Waddington, both of whom knew that the allegations were unfounded.


militaryucmjdefenselawyer252

U.S. v. Air Force E-6 – Edwards AFB, California

Client accused of physically assaulting his neighbor, the wife a fellow NCO. Multiple Security Forces members, including the First Sergeant, testified that they saw my client pummeling the woman with his fists while he was on top of her. Client was also accused of sexually assaulting the alleged victim on another occasion.Mr. Waddington and ADC Captain John Capps fought the charges in front of an enlisted jury.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES


U.S. v. Navy O-5 – Norfolk Navy Base, Virginia

Our Client, a Navy neurosurgeon, was accused of raping a junior Naval officer. Mr. Waddington was hired before charges were preferred and he knew that unless the defense acted quickly, then NCIS would blow the investigation and would not collect favorable evidence. At this point, numerous witnesses were lined up and ready to testify against our client. The Navy even hand picked a biased forensic Sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE), who happened to know and dislike our client, to conduct the SANE exam. Mr. Waddington advised our client to hire an investigator as part of the defense team. The defense team then built their defense before charges were filed and we were prepared to fight. Mr. Waddington and LT Andrew Clayton worked endless hours with the client to prepare the best defense possible.It is now extremely difficult to get a sexual assault case dropped at an Article 32. However, the defense went “all in” at the Article 32 in an effort to show our client’s innocence. Our client testified and told his story of innocence, backed by photos, videos, witness statements and other evidence. The prosecution brought in a lot of evidence in an effort to convict. In the end, we proved that the government’s witnesses were liars.

RESULT: ALL CHARGES DROPPED AFTER THE ARTICLE 32


militaryucmjdefenselawyer214

U.S. v. Marine O-3 –Marine Corps Base Hawaii (Kaneohe Bay)

Client and about 7 other Marine Officers were accused of dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and various other charges for drunken partying and prostitution during a deployment to Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia.  ALL of the officers received OTHER THAN HONORABLE DISCHARGES. We fought the case at a board and asked for an Honorable Discharge, which is what the client wanted.

RESULT: Honorable Discharge


U.S. v. Army O-4 – Fort Carson, Colorado

Client was accused of mishandling SECRET documents in Iraq and allegedly trying to smuggle the documents out of the FOB, back to the US. Mr. Waddington fought this case at a Show Cause Board with attorney CPT Rheanna Felton.

RESULT: Retained on Active Duty


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 militarydefenseattorneys9.59.06 PM copycontact 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 militarycourtmartiallawyer11.31209were “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


U.S. v. Marine E-7 – Iraq, Okinawa, & Parris Island, South Carolina

Client was accused of taking large bribes from contractors in Iraq. We got involved in the case in 2007. Mr. Waddington traveled the globe fighting for this Marine and his family. The Government spent over $500,000 and 8 years investigating this case. Our client was being scapegoated for the corruption and bribery that was occurring in the Iraq war. Bottom line, we fought this case from the beginning until the end and refused to cave in to the pressures of the Government. Read what our client had to say about our representation (this is a quote from a review posted by the client):

Relentless and Aggressive Military Defense Attorney Posted by One grateful man

“My legal issue began in the summer of 2007, and Mr. Waddington carefully and diligently defended my case for six years running. When you become a “suspect” in any military investigation they will go to great lengths to convict you and send you to prison. I am living proof that Mr. Waddington is the only attorney you can trust with your life and freedom. In 2008, after months of investigation by Federal and Military law enforcement, I was facing a Court-Martial with the possibility of years in prison. Mr. Waddington flew to the other side of the world (literally) to meet the prosecutor face to face and combat the allegations prior to the charges being filed. Judging from my experience, you cannot afford to wait and “see what happens” the earlier you get Michael on your case the better chance you will have to protect your rights and freedom. After that meeting in 2008, the prosecution offered me an Other than Honorable discharge in lieu of proceeding to Court-Martial, but Mr. Waddington was adamant that I was not guilty of the allegations and we agreed to fight it out in front of a jury. The prosecution never filed the charges because of the pretrial investigation conducted by Mr. Waddington and his ability to expose all of the facts surrounding the case, not just the facts provided by military investigators. At this point in the ordeal Mr. Waddington and I believed the case was complete and I was “in the clear” so to speak. We were unaware that the military reinvestigated for the next two years straight and traveled all over the world to gather evidence to ruin my life. Fast forward to 2010 and I received a target letter from a US Attorney’s Office threatening me with a Federal Felony Indictment on the same charges that the military never filed. I was scarred shitless, but I turned to the man I trust with my life, Mr. Waddington. Although Mr. Waddington wasn’t admitted to practice in that particular District Court he led me and guided me through the whole process under no obligation to help me other than his passion for justice. At this point I relied on internet posts and advertisements to find another Attorney admitted in that District to defend me and the bottom line was I made the wrong choice. Many Attorneys will talk a big game up until you pay them and then they will spend the rest of the time trying to convince you to take a “deal”. militarydefenseattorneys9.54.47 PM copyI thank God that I had met Mr. Waddington and he taught me that your freedom and life is worth fighting for until the bitter end. I stood my ground for the next three years and fought a Federal Indictment with guidance from Mr. Waddington. In 2013, my ordeal was over and I had a Federal Conviction on my record, but I was still on Active Duty so the military decided to process me for Administrative Separation. Again, without hesitation I called the man that in my opinion is the one that will fight for the best possible outcome, even when the house of cards has already fallen. Now the rules have changed and every piece of evidence against me is admissible before this AdSep board and the Government is relentless when it comes to gathering evidence to send you to prison. Mr. Waddington doesn’t care about the odds or the conviction rates he cares about us and he proved that yet again when he convinced every single board member to retain me on active duty with a Federal Conviction. He saved my career, freedom and dignity. When you are a target for the US Government you can bet your freedom that they will do everything in their power to crush you and lock you up. At this point you cannot afford not to hire Mr. Waddington; I’m telling you from my personal experience. Relentless, aggressive, compassionate, intelligent and a long ball hitter; Thanks Mike words cannot express what you have done for my family and I.”

RESULT: Retained on Active Duty


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


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 militarydefenseattorneys10.02.34 PM copypolygraph.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


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 militarydefenseattorneys9.58.27 PMincoherent 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

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

militaryucmjdefenselawyer21


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.


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 militarydefenseattorneys9.59.48 PM copyand 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


U.S. v. Coast Guard E-4 – USCG Base Ketchikan and Sector Juneau, Alaska

Another example of the prosecution stacking the deck and using anti-male propaganda to win convictions. Below are images posted by the Coast Guard’s “expert” to prove that all men are rapists and the images posted below teach men that raping women is okay.

Our client, a Coast Guard mechanic, was charged with raping and sexually assaulting a female Seaman. He was also charged with sexually assaulting her. In addition, he was charged with entering her bathroom while she showered and pouring a cup of cold water on her (assault) and trying to view her. She accused him after she learned that she was facing a discharge for misconduct. We were not hired until after he was charged.

CGIS searched across the USA to find women to say that he was a predator. They interviewed over 14 women, including his past girlfriends, asking about his sexual predisposition and telling them that he is a sex offender. They found one woman to say that 6-8 years ago, our client rolled over and flopped his arm on her side  while they shared a bed after a night of drinking. The woman said that it was NOT sexual and he NEVER touched her in a sexual way. The prosecutors added this witness to their witness list and argued that it was a sexual assault, regardless of what the woman thought.

Mr. Waddington and LT Terrance Thornburg prepared to fight the case in front of an enlisted panel.

Victim’s Past False Sexual Assault Allegation

Meanwhile, the defense uncovered evidence that proved that the alleged victim was a liar and had committed various crimes. She moved in with our client after the first alleged assault and hung out with him all of the time. We received evidence from CGIS that showed that she falsely accused another Coast Guard member of raping her. CGIS determined that the claim was unfounded, meaning it did not happen.

CGIS also gave the defense text messages in which the alleged victim was joking with our client about the alleged rape and agreeing to meet up with him and drink beer.

Victim’s Motive and Past Misconduct

When she accused our client, the victim was facing an Administrative Separation for misconduct and her second NJP/Mast in 16 months (this requires an automatic separation). A day after she was told that she was facing separation, she cried rape against our client. We also learned that the alleged victim received Non-judicial punishment for false official statement and other misconduct. She even tried to lie her way out of her Mast/NJP but was convicted nonetheless.

Did the Coast Guard do the right thing? You be the judge.

After accusing our client and despite her lengthy pattern of lying and misconduct, they allowed the alleged victim to stay in the Coast Guard and branch into law enforcement (ME field). She was then moved to Mobile, Alabama to be near family and the beach (for therapy reasons). All of her past investigations were set aside and she started off with a clean slate in Mobile.

The Coast Guard lawyers then fought hard to suppress the alleged victim’s past lying, her numerous crimes, her false accusation of sexual assault, and then tried to smear our client.

The judge, pursuant to MRE 412, then shut down 90% of our defense (the lying, false accusation, manipulation, and other misconduct) because it may embarrass the victim. We are contesting his rulings on appeal.

Jury Stacked Against the Defense

When we showed up for the court martial, the Convening Authority, in collaboration with his JAG lawyers, deleted many of the jury members and replaced them with hand picked alternates. Then, they added 4 females to replace members that were struck from the panel.

It is extremely rare to have such a high number of female panel members because the panel is supposed to reflect the composition of the unit. Having female members is not an issue because some females scrutinize the actions of fellow females more carefully than men. What we have a problem with is intentionally stacking the panel with a particular sex/race/or demographic in order to prejudice the accused and deny him a fair trial.

As you will see, the prosecution tried to prejudice the females with the hard-core feminist expert witness they tried to call.

Before we showed up, aside from stacking the panel, the SARC/SAPR tampered with the jury by teaching the jury members a class about consent. The class taught a different standard of consent than the UCMJ. For
example, some were taught that a man must ask “verbal permission” at every step of every sexual encounter. Otherwise, it is sexual assault and there is no consent.

When the judge clarified the law, which does not require verbal consent, about half of the jury still said that verbal consent was required, otherwise it was sexual assault.

Verbal Consent: May I Kiss Your Lips?

For example, before kissing a woman (or even a girlfriend) a man must ask and receive a verbal “Yes” to each question:

“May I kiss your lips?”

“May I kiss your neck?”

“May I kiss your ear?”

“May I French kiss you?”

“May I put my hand on your leg?” and so forth.

Half of the panel said that verbal consent was required, even though it is not the law.

It gets worse. 13 out of 14 jurors were coworkers and/or friends with the prosecution. Some of them shared office space with the prosecutor. One of them had been to his house for social events.

In the end, we ended up with 5 jurors. All 5 knew and worked with the prosecutor.

4 of the 5 remaining jurors were SAPR trained females and 1 was a domestic violence victim. The only remaining male, an O-3, said he was friends with the prosecutor and their kids did Girl Scouts together. The prosecutor’s wife was the Girl Scout Den Mother. We kept this member because he seemed more fair than the alternates. For example, one alternate said she would hold it against the defense and the accused if the victim cried on cross examination.

Special Victim Counsel Out of Control

In the trial, the prosecution launch dozens of bogus objections in an attempt to stop the defense from speaking. The Special Victim Counsel (the victim’s lawyer and not a party to the case) was allowed to scream objections from the audience and mumble loudly under her breath throughout the trial. (This is prohibited by law, but the Coast Guard lets it happen).

Then, they tried to call a Juneau Rape Victim Advocate as an expert witness to bolster the alleged victim. The Rape Advocate had NEVER spoken with the victim and knew NOTHING about the case. However, she was prepared to testify against our client and help put him in prison.

Mr. Waddington did some research into this alleged “expert witness” and quickly learned that she was a man hating bigot. Her social media posts were full of anti-male posts and images. We learned that she teaches a class to feminist groups called The Rape Culture, in which she talks about how men are raised to be rapists and how we live in a society where we condone rape and enable men to be rapists. In addition, the propaganda in her posts suggested that any time a beautiful woman is used in a TV or magazine ad, the woman is being exploited by men and is part of “Rape Culture.” If a man looks at the beautiful woman, then he is part of the “Rape Culture.”

We also learned that according to her social media activities and groups:

-Anyone who questions a rape allegation (even if it is false) is re-raping and re-abusing the woman (including lawyers and cops).

-Looking at an attractive women is leering and leering is the same as sexual assault.

-By shaving their legs, women are being subjugated to a sexist/rapist male agenda.

And so forth…

The judge ruled that the Rape Advocate was not allowed to testify.

Then, the prosecution brought in Dr. William Keppler, a well known Department of Defense Forensic Psychiatrist, to testify against our client. Dr. Keppler never interviewed our client, the victim, nor did he read the case file (at the request of the prosecution). In his cross-examination, Mr. Waddington turned Dr. Keppler against the prosecution and got him to admit that the victim’s story “was consistent with a false allegation.” (Ouch).

The prosecution then played a recording where our client supposedly confessed to the crimes.

After battling it out in court and calling numerous impeachment witnesses, the defense rested.

Our client was acquitted of all sexual assault charges. He was convicted of going into the alleged victim’s bathroom and pouring cold water on her.

At sentencing, the alleged victim made an unsworn statement and started screaming at our client and Mr. Waddington. She claimed that our client ruined her life and that she was afraid to be around people. Both were lies. We were allowed to present evidence to rebut her lies. We presented Facebook posts that showed her drinking and partying like crazy in Alabama and saying how happy she was to get out of Alaska. We were also allowed to mention that she falsely accused another Coast Guard member of sexual assault.

RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, & ABUSIVE SEXUAL CONTACT. GUILTY of assault and battery for throwing water and attempted unlawful viewing.

SENTENCE: NO JAIL TIME, NO DISCHARGE, restriction to USCG Base Ketchikan for 60 days, reduction to E-3, forfeiture of one month’s pay.


U.S. v. Air Force E-4 – Beale AFB, CA

Our client was accused of breaking into the room of a sleeping Airman, raping her, slapping her around, and abusing her. A SANE (sexual assault nurse examination) was conducted the next morning and found DNA, semen, bruising, and other physical, forensic, and scientific evidence.

He faced a maximum punishment of life in prison, a Dishonorable discharge, and sex offender registration. This was a tough case because we faced a victim that was melodramatic and four highly regarded experts that were ready to testify against our client, including a Forensic Nurse, two DNA experts, and a forensic psychologist.

Mr. Waddington and Captain Brittany Musleve requested an enlisted jury and prepared to contest all charges. We brought our own team of experts to the battle, including Dr. Jeffrey Younggren, a forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Pamela Tabor, a  renowned forensic sex assault expert, and Dr. Norah Rudin, a DNA expert. We all traveled to Beale AFB for the trial and were ready to fight.

Using Facebook and other social media, we were able to learn information about the complaining witness, including information about her motive to make a false accusation and her untruthfulness. While this was no guarantee of success at trial, it gave us some leverage.

The day before the trial, the prosecution offered to dismiss all charges if our client left the military (discharge in lieu of court martial). Our client decided to accept the discharge and avoid the risks associated with a contested trial. In a jury trial, there are no guarantees.

The General approved the discharge and dismissed all charges.

RESULT: Client dismissed with an OTH. No conviction, no criminal record, no sex offender registration.


U.S. v. Army CW2 – Fort Stewart, GA

This is an ad in a DC airport. In the eyes of the military, the guy in the middle would be a rapist and a predator.

Our client, with over 20 years of service and 2 small children, was charged with a total of 52 charges and specifications. He faced multiple counts of violent rape, sodomy, kidnapping, aggravated assault, threatening to kill the victim’s child, adultery, and various other allegations. He was also accused of various crimes against a second victim.

He faced 5 life sentences without the possibility of parole. In addition to the life sentences, he faced an additional 455 years in prison, a Dismissal, and sex offender registration.

This case was a challenge because the victim reported the next morning and went to the emergency room. There was physical and forensic evidence including injuries to the face and body, missing hair, and bruises. Alleged victim #1 was married to an Army E-4.

We were retained immediately and we began to collect evidence in his defense.

The story took a twist when we learned that the alleged victim was stalking our client, showing up at his place of work, dealing drugs, and begging him for sex. On one night, she showed up at his house (3 weeks after he supposedly raped her) and demanded sex. Although our client had a no-contact order, he let the woman into his house and they had sex. He audio recorded her begging for sex, moaning, and the sex itself. We were also able to collect Facebook, SnapChat, and Instagram evidence that proved the woman was a psycho.

We presented this evidence to the prosecution hoping to get the charges dropped. Instead of dropping the charges, they added additional charges and threw our client into pretrial confinement. At the confinement hearing, Captain Keaton and Mr. Waddington successfully fought to have our client released from prison.

Afterwards, the prosecutor added even more charges. They listed 28 prosecution witnesses including experts and medical doctors that would testify against or client.

Waddington and Keaton pressed forward for trial and demanded an officer jury.

Right before the trial, the prosecution tried to negotiate a deal. In the end, on behalf of our client we negotiated a deal that dropped over 45 charges, avoided sex offender registration, avoided a dismissal, and limited his time in jail to 6 months.

RESULT: Client pled guilty to 2 misdemeanor assaults, kidnapping, violating the no-contact order, and making a threat. The remaining charges were dismissed.

JUDGE’S SENTENCE: The judge sentenced him to 15 months in prison and a reprimand

ACTUAL SENTENCE: Under the plea deal, he received 6 months confinement, a reprimand, no NO DISCHARGE. He will serve about 4.5 months and will apply for retirement when he is released.


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