Skip to main content
Joseph L. Jordan
Avvo
Pro

Joseph Jordan’s Legal Cases

27 total

  • US v. O-3 at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri (Forcible Rape, Article 120 of UCMJ)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    Full Aquittal
    Description:
    Client was charged with the Forcible Rape and Aggravated Sexual Assault of his wife. This case was unique in several aspects. First, this was a spousal rape case. Second, this was a case that was solely investigated by civilian law enforcement. There was absolutely no military police or CID involvement whatsoever. Third, the alleged victim never called the cops. Fourth, this marriage was in its 10 month after only a 3-month courtship and engagement. Lastly, there was a 40-minute video taped confession that Client gave to law enforcement. In spite of this confession, Mr. Jordan and his team secured a verdict of NOT GUILTY! This case starts on a Monday morning where Client had morning sex with his wife. Unfortunately, during foreplay, he decided to use the word “rape” in his routine morning dirty talk. It was not until Monday evening that he found out that there was an issue with the language he used. Apparently the word “rape” was a trigger word for the alleged victim. She began to attack him with the language he used. The next day he wrote an apology letter to his wife specifically apologizing for the words he used. But that was not enough for his wife. The alleged victim called and notified her friend in Colorado. Her friend worked for the State of Colorado Correctional Department and was thus a mandatory reporter. The alleged victim then spent the rest of the week badgering and attacking him calling him her father and stating that he raped her. Her friend, the mandatory reporter, called the local police to do a health and welfare check, at around midnight on Thursday. This is 4 days after the alleged incident. Upon arrival, Client tells law enforcement, “I am going to lay it out on the line “for her”…and he proceeded to state that he forced himself on his wife. He was arrested and taken to the station for questioning where he proceeded to state that he forced himself on his wife. There are several key things that happened at trial. First, Mr. Jordan set the stage early for the trial. During the panel selection process he asked the following questions: a) Have any of you talked dirty to your spouse or significant other prior to having sex; b) Have you ever received mixed signals from your spouse causing a brief conflict between the tow of you?; c) Have you ever admitted to anything that was not true; d) Have you ever agreed with your spouse when you in fact disagreed just to end the argument? These 4 questions among many others set the tone for how this trial was going to progress. Second, the direct testimony of the alleged victim came off like a horrible theatrical production. It was very contrived and forced. Third, Mr. Jordan effectively crossed examined the alleged victim. He talked about the short courtship. He questioned her about the break up during the time she dated Client. He pinpointed her on a key piece of evidence. “Did you date another man while engaged to my client?” The answer was no. Through another witness, Mr. Jordan hammered home to the panel that the alleged victim lied on the stand about this question. The alleged victim was in fact dating another man. If she would lie about this, what else would she lie about? Fourth, Mr. Jordan and his team effectively prepared their Client to testify. The Client told his story. And it was the Client’s story, coupled with the effective cross-examination of the alleged victim that secured victory in this case
  • US v. Navy E-6 -Bahrain- (Article 120, Article 128 Rape and Aggravated Assault)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    Charges Dropped!
    Description:
    The Charges in this case included charges of False Official Statement, two specifications of Aggravated Sexual Assault, three specifications of Aggravated Assault, Communication of a Threat and Adultery. This was Mr. Jordan’s second major successful Defense of an alleged Sex Crime in Bahrain. From the very beginning, it appeared that there were severe credibility issues with the alleged victim in this case. The alleged victim was a third country national from France who had tutored several of the NCIS agents involved in the investigation on French. NCIS was not interested in the credibility of the witness or her story because they felt they knew her enough already so they blindly pushed the investigation forward. NCIS went as far as to wire tap and record the Client’s phone conversation with the alleged victim. As Mr. Jordan listened to the recording, it became very clear that NCIS was coaching the alleged victim on exactly what to say. A thorough and complete examination of her phone records, email records showed that she had a history of manipulating the truth. The Defense review of the aforementioned records turned up several petitions of abandonment filed by the alleged victim against her alleged husband for abandonment, adultery, financial fraud, deceit upon the marriage and threats to murder. When questioned about these allegations, the alleged victim said no. The Defense review of the alleged victims records turned up numerous petitions filed by her in the country of Burkina Faso. At least 6 petitions were filed against 5 different individuals. One of the petitions was filed for rape. None of the filed petitions had been acted on favorably towards the alleged victim. During the Article 32 hearing, the Defense concentrated solely on the alleged victims credibility. There were numerous other issues that cropped up regarding her story. Thorough pretrial investigation and preparation for the Article 32 won the day for the client. RESULT: Rape Charges Dropped! Aggravated Assault Charges Dropped! False Official Statement and Communication of a Threat Charges Dropped!! The client accepted a deal for Summary Courts Martial on Adultery and simple battery, with a condition that there would be no Administrative Separation.
  • U.S. v. Navy E-4 – NAS Bahrain (RAPE, Article 120)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    NOT GUILTY of Rape, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault!! Guilty of Wrongful Sexual Contact, False Official Statement and Sentence: NO PUNISHMENT!!.
    Description:
    Client was charged with Rape Aggravated Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Unlawful Sexual Contact False Official Statement and Adultery. The Navy’s approach to this case was appalling. First, they brought in a veteran NCIS agent to investigate the case. He lied, deceived and tricked Mr. Jordan’s client. First he told the Client that linens had been seized from the night before, indicating that DNA swabs will be taken. No linens were seized because they had already been laundered. The NCIS agent knew that before he questioned Mr. Jordan’s client. Second, the NCIS agent lied about the injuries allegedly sustained by the alleged victim, specifically stating that there were “acute signs of trauma”. The medical report did not reflect the NCIS agent’s lies. The Agent had read the report before questioning the Client. Lastly, the NCIS agent lied the Mr. Jordan’s Client about a witness to the actual event in question. A local national Bahraini had observed what had happened on the morning in question. This witness verbally told the NCIS agent that the sex between Mr. Jordan’s client, and the alleged victim appeared consensual to him. However, the NCIS agent chose to tell Mr. Jordan’s client that the same Bahraini had heard the alleged victim say no, indicating that the sex was not consensual! All of these deceitful lies were recorded on video. And Mr. Jordan utterly destroyed the credibility of this NCIS agent and exposed his true motives for his deceitful lies through skillful cross-examination. The NCIS Agent’s only goal was to secure a confession, thru any means necessary, even if he had to lie about what an exculpatory witness actually observed. The NCIS’s constant refrain was “I go where the facts lead me”. Lastly, the Prosecutor chose to rest his case on the video taped interrogation of Mr. Jordan’s client. Unfortunately, Mr. Jordan’s client initially lied to investigators in an effort to protect his family from these horrendous allegations. His lie was recorded and presented in front of the panel. Then, his admission to consensual sex was presented. The Government made much of the Client’s matter of fact description of what happened. There was no emotion. So, Mr. Jordan presented members of his Client’s chain of command who discussed the Client’s matter of fact nature. These are among several highlights of the case. Ultimately, in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, Mr. Jordan was able to secure victory on behalf of his client. Result: NOT GUILTY of Rape, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault!! Guilty of Wrongful Sexual Contact, False Official Statement and Adultery. Sentence: NO PUNISHMENT!!
  • U.S. Army v. E-5 – Fort Bliss, Texas (RAPE, Article 120)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    NOT GUILTY of Rape, and Forcible Sodomy 2. Conspiracy to commit rape and forcible sodomy charges were DROPPED 3. Guilty of false official statement and conspiracy to obstruct justice Sentence: NO CONFINMENT.
    Description:
    Client was charged with Conspiracy to commit rape, conspiracy to commit forcible sodomy, false official statement, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, rape, and forcible sodomy. The basic allegation was that Mr. Jordan’s Client and another NCO was accused of raping and sodomizing an E-3 at about 230 a.m. in the morning in the front seat of the NCO’s (alleged co-conspirator’s) pickup truck. This case had its challenges. The majority of the key witnesses, to include the alleged victim were deployed overseas. These challenges did not prohibit Mr. Jordan’s team from prevailing at trial. Key facts leading to an acquittal in this case include significant delayed reporting (36 hours) by the alleged victim; sex with her boyfriend at least twice after the alleged incident; no findings were made to the sexual assault examination; and last but not least, Mr. Jordan affectively showed that the alleged victim was a liar. This case is a testament to why pretrial investigation by defense counsel is vital. Mr. Jordan’s team learned that the alleged victim had slept with the co-conspirator on CQ duty. Due to the current state of rape shield laws, the Mr. Jordan’s defense team was not permitted to introduce this evidence at trial. However, Mr. Jordan’s team was able show that the alleged victim had lied twice before under oath about whether or not she had a romantic and sexual relationship with another key witness to this trial. This key witness was in fact another E-5 who was the first person the alleged victim texted after the alleged rape. Next Mr. Jordan’s team showed that not only her, but her boyfriend lied under oath. Her boyfriend maintained at trial that they only had sex on the Sunday before she made her outcry and submitted to a sex assault examination. In previous hearings the boyfriend stated that he had sex with the alleged victim about 5 am, a mere 3.5 hours after the alleged incident! The alleged victim always maintained that she had sex with her boyfriend on the Sunday before her outcry. However there was undisputable DNA evidence in this case that Mr. Jordan used to his advantage. The DNA evidence showed that the alleged victim did in fact have sex with her boyfriend a mere 3.5 hours after the alleged rape…and again on Sunday. The alleged victim lied! She also neglected to tell her boyfriend about the allegations until she was on her way to the sex assault examination…after the second time they had sex…over 36 hours after the alleged incident. In sum, she had sex with her boyfriend, not once but twice after she was ALLEGEDLY raped by two men. Scene investigation is vitally important. Through investigating the scene, Mr. Jordan learned that the alleged victim parked directly under a parking light. Second Mr. Jordan learned that the only route the alleged victim drove to and from the club took her past a Major Hospital Emergency room. Lastly, Mr. Jordan learned that the alleged victim had made it a habit to routinely visit her boyfriend at the club on the weekends, because he was the club’s DJ. All of these things were brought out at trial. Last, but not least, Mr. Jordan skillfully cross-examined the Special Agent who took a written statement from Mr. Jordan’s client. This was not the usual cross-examination involving the interrogation techniques used by investigators. In fact, Mr. Jordan endorsed the Special Agent’s techniques and experience in order to get at the truth. The Government wanted to get the Client’s statement into evidence in order to prove up false official statement. Mr. Jordan allowed this to happen. The statement contained key details regarding the incident showing that the alleged victim consented to sexual intercourse on the night in question. The Special Agent unwittingly stated that she felt that she figured out what happened that night. By endorsing the truthfulness of this statement, the Special Agent endorsed the Client’s version of events. Mr. Jordan argued accordingly during summation and his client was acquitted of rape and forcible sodomy.
  • US v. Navy E-3 Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston Texas (Sexual Assault, Article 120)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    Charges Dropped
    Description:
    Client was finishing his technical training at Joint Base San Antonio when he was accused of sexual assault. One of the Client’s female instructors was the accuser and she alleged sexual assault. As the investigation progressed the Command backed down from Court Martial charges for sexual assault. The Command’s next step was to read the Client for an Article 15. As the investigation progressed, the Command began to realize that the tables had actually turned. The Command realized that that the accuser was actually flirting with my Client. It was the accuser who was in the wrong and was motivated for various reasons to make a false claim. After reviewing all of the evidence that we presented to the Command, the Command ultimately dropped ALL OF THE CHARGES. It is interesting to point out that normally investigators would have enough for at least sexual harassment in a case such as this. Effectively showing that the alleged victims are bold face liars is often the best, and only way to success in cases of alleged sexual assault. Lastly, and most importantly, my Client listened and followed my advice without question. Accordingly, my Client achieved the best possible result in his case.
  • April 2012 – U.S. v. Coast Guard E-5 (SUBSTANCE ABUSE)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    Charges Dropped!
    Description:
    The Client was accused of using crack cocaine by a fellow shipmate who was being questioned by CGIS. The investigation included testing, an invasive search of his residence along with multiple repeated attempts to get a statement. Client followed Mr. Jordan’s advice to the letter.
  • U.S. v. Army E-4 – Fort Drum, New York (MANSLAUGHTER)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    Charges Dropped! Administrative Discharge. He has no criminal record and no felony conviction.
    Description:
    The Client was charged with the criminal offenses of Manslaughter (Article 119) and Negligent Discharge (Article 134). The Client was accused of unlawfully killing a fellow Soldier while deployed. The fellow Soldier was the client’s best friend. The original strategy was to try this case. The victim’s family in this case fully supported Mr. Jordan’s Client. They even testified at the Article 32 hearing, imploring the Army Prosecutors to not go forward to Courts-Martial. Of course, the prosecutors and the Convening Authority ignored such stirring testimony and the charges were referred to Courts-Martial. Through intense discovery requests, Mr. Jordan was able to learn that not one, but several negligent discharges had occurred within the unit in question without any repercussions. To make matters worse, NO corrective actions were ever taken against the individuals who was actually responsible for pulling the trigger! Mr. Jordan also pointed out the inequity of the Government regarding unfairly charging his client when he discovered that there was yet another case – IN THE SAME UNIT- where a Captain was negligently shot in the leg by his driver while on a routine patrol; however, that driver was not put on trial. Armed with this knowledge, Mr. Jordan pushed the Army prosecutors to the negotiating table.
  • U.S. v. Coast Guard E-7 – Mayport Naval Station, Florida (LARCENY)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    Full Aquittal!
    Description:
    The Coast Guard accused Mr. Jordan’s Client of stealing and wrongfully appropriating over $12,000 worth of specialized Coast Guard equipment. Coast Guard approached this case with the mindset of securing a conviction. The Coast Guard ensured that the Command Master Chief for the convening authority in this case was on the client’s Courts-Martial panel. Additionally, several Chief’s and Chief Petty Officers working directly under the Command Master Chief were included on the total panel of 10. Lastly, several officers, who were rated by the convening authority, were included on the panel. Thru skillful questioning, Mr. Jordan successfully brought the panel down from 10 to 3 panel members. The Coast Guard opted to prosecute this case instead of taking a look at the unit’s internal property accountability procedures. None of the property Client allegedly stole was accurately reflected on the books. But that is not the whole story. Client is a highly skilled, 20-year veteran of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, his skills rubbed his superiors the wrong way. When he PCS’d, he left in a hurry. As he arrived to his next duty station he found out there was an investigation into missing equipment at his previous unit. The unit did not call him to inform him. He found out from a friend. So, in order to help, the Client immediately called his previous Command and left a message. No one answered and no one called back. Instead, the Command called the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS). CGIS was only interested in investigating Mr. Jordan’s Client and failed to properly investigate for evidence that would exonerate the Client. The fact that the equipment was found and returned to the unit was of no consequence to CGIS, the Coast Guard or the Government as those agencies’ only interest was to find the Client guilty - With or Without proper evidence!
  • US v. Air Force E-7 (Article 81, Article 132, Article 134)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    NOT GUILTY of Article 81, Article 132 and 1 Specification of Article 134. Guilty of Obstruction of Justice, Sentence: Reprimand and reduction in grade one rank. NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE! RETIREMENT SAVED!!
    Description:
    My client is a Test Parachutist for the Air Force. He happens to be one of the most experienced test parachutists in the military. He was accused of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Government, making false claims against the government, obstruction of justice and wrongful receipt of government funds. At the time I was brought on as counsel, my client was pulled off of terminal leave. The Government proceeded to investigate the case for 11 months before they charged my client with a crime. My client wisely heeded my advice and did not talk with investigators. In short, my client was accused of overbilling the government for services not rendered through a contract vendor known as Sky Dive Elsinore. Sky Dive Elsinore provided lift and jump services to the Test Parachutists at Edwards AFB. Brad and I flew out to Edwards AFB about 5 days prior to the Article 32 to conduct our own investigation. We had an opportunity to review the files prior to coming to Edwards AFB, however there were more than a few witnesses that we needed to discuss. Brad and I traveled down to Sky Dive Elsinore and interviewed 3 very important witnesses in our case. We then toured the facilities of Sky Dive Elsinore in order to get a feel for how things operated for the Air Force Parachutists. Over the next few days leading up to the Article 32 Brad and I conducted over 30 witness interviews in order to get down to the bottom of what was really happening. We interviewed the key players in program management, unit leadership and contracting to figure out where the disconnect was. We also learned that the OSI agents did not take the time to learn about the contracts involved. OSI did not take the time to learn about my client’s job and requirements as a test parachutist. OSI also failed to learn the different parts of a parachute and what would be required to do jumps. OSI failed to learn all of the different equipment requirements for a test parachutist. For example, OSI thought a CYPRES device was an altimeter. A CYPRES Device is a parachute release system that activates automatically at a certain altitude if for get to pull your Shute. It became very clear that the Government had no clue as to what was really going on in this case. Brad and I went more than the extra mile to understand every aspect of this case so that we could properly defend our client. At trial we expertly explained to the panel what was going on with the contracts. We pointed out that everything my client was doing was actually authorized. Brad and I did the research and found the paperwork that authorized the alleged overbilling. We also took the time to expose how the Government failed in their duties to properly instruct the Test Parachutists, and Sky Dive Elsinore on how the contracting for the services should be properly handled. Lastly, in my closing argument, I used all of the Government’s evidence against them. The Government had put up a slide show documenting the invoices they use to come up with the calculations that they made to determine exactly how much my client alleged made false claims for. The Government did not look at their evidence close enough because I was able to point out an authorization on every invoice they brought forward. The Government failed to properly investigate this case thoroughly and if they had investigated it properly no charges would have been brought in the first place.
  • US Army v. CW2 (Board of Inquiry)

    Practice Area:
    Military Law
    Outcome:
    This Veteran Chief Warrant Officer was Retained!!
    Description:
    A 19 year veteran of the United States Army contacted Mr. Jordan because he was facing a BOI. This veteran had worked his way through the enlisted ranks until he felt motivated enough to become a Chief Warrant Officer. He spent his whole career in the food service. 2/3s through his initial tour in Japan, this Warrant Officer came under investigation and scrutiny for several allegations of inappropriate conduct towards local national women. The investigation was a farce. In fact, it was the worst investigation into an officer that Mr. Jordan had ever reviewed. The investigation's conclusions relied on 3rd party hearsay. The investigator never interviewed the alleged complaining witnesses himself. He took the word of senior staff officers who allegedly interviewed these women, though they had no notes, or sworn statements to corroborate their claims. What's worse is the Commanding General that signed off on the eventual General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, was himself removed from his position due to the alleged mishandling of investigations. Nonetheless, due to the "bad paper" in this officer's file, a BOI was initiated. Mr. Jordan thoroughly investigated all of the problems and issues with this case. Mr. Jordan was able to find several high ranking officers who were willing to testify on behalf of his Client.