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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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 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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 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 Article 32, OSI used a pretextual 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 breakup. 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 a terrible memory, and she was apparently not on the drug at the time of the sex. THE ARTICLE 32 OFFICER THEN RECOMMENDED A GENERAL COURT-MARTIAL FOR AGGRAVATED SEXUAL ASSAULT

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

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 regulation and one count of assault & battery.

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 El 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Waddington and hard-hitting 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).

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 knew she was a pathological liar but need the evidence to prove it. 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.

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.

The Government lined up numerous witnesses and alleged co conspirators to testify that our client was guilty. The client was facing over 30 years in prison and a DD and he was originally offered 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.

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.

Despite the odds, Mr. Waddington and Capt Eric Winkofsky fought the case in front of a Marine jury during a two day trial at Quantico Marine Base.

Mr. Waddington and Captain Paul Isherwood fought the case in front of an officer board with one enlisted member.

Mr. Waddington and Captain Nate Himert, with the assistance of Dean Wideman, a leading DNA expert, fought the case in front of an enlisted jury.

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.

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.

– E-2

– O-3

– E-3

– E-6

– WO1

– E-7

– E-6

– E-3

E-4

– E-7(P)

– E-3

– E-5