U.S. v. T.C. (E-5), United States Army – Overseas Tour (Sexual Assault)
Jun 08, 2019
OUTCOME: No federal conviction. NO sex offender registration. No punitive discharge.
T.C. hires Shewmaker Law after he is notified that he is under investigation for sexual assault and possibly child pornography. Shewmaker Law conducts a preliminary investigation, speaks to law enforc...ement officials, and communicates with T.C.’s overseas defense attorney. After approximately 8 months of investigation, the Army drops the sexual assault investigation and the child pornography charges.
Sex crime
U.S. v. M.B. (E-1), Fort Benning, GA (Article 120 – Sexual Assault)
Jun 05, 2019
OUTCOME: Investigation dropped. M.B. allowed to graduate from basic training. No conviction. No separation. No NJP.
M.B. hires Shewmaker & Shewmaker after he finds out that a woman from his home town is claiming that M.B. sexually assaulted her. M.B. is a trainee at Fort Benning, GA when local law enforcement reque...sts to interview him for the alleged misconduct. Shewmaker Law immediately assigns one of their experienced investigators to the case. After a thorough investigation, Shewmaker Law uncovers several eye witnesses that observed the sexual encounter between M.B. and the complaining witness. Each of these witnesses will testify that the encounter was consensual.
DUI and DWI
U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Campbell, Kentucky (DUI)
Apr 17, 2019
OUTCOME: FULLY RETAINED, NO punishment, NO loss of rank and NO loss of military benefits.
Sergeant (SGT) is accused of driving under the influence in Clarksville, Tennessee. The Command initiates a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and separation proceedings. SGT retains the... firm and Mr. Mickey Williams begins to investigate the case. Williams learns that the client has fewer than five years of active duty service, which means that the Command does not have to send her to an administrative separation board and can even kick her out of the Army without a hearing. Williams develops a plan to combat her discharge. Williams creates a Respondent’s Packet detailing why the client should remain in the Army. Williams interviews and collects over fifteen character statements on the client’s behalf to include one the client’s former commanders. Williams also drafts a substantive brief detailing the night in question, the contributions the client has made to the Army as evidenced by numerous awards, and argues how the Command should retain the client in the Army.
Sex crime
U.S. v. CDT, United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, New York (Sexual Assault)
Apr 10, 2019
OUTCOME: Case DISMISSED, NO CONVICTION, NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Confinement.
Cadet (CDT) is accused of sexually assaulting another CDT in her dorm room. USMA launches an investigation and determines that there is probable cause to go to trial. CDT proclaims his innocence and ev...en subjects himself to a polygraph examination. USMA prefers charges against CDT and he immediately retains Mr. Mickey Williams to defend him against the allegation. Mr. Mickey Williams begins reviewing the evidence and interviewing witnesses. Williams discovers that the accuser was in another relationship during the alleged assault. Additionally, Williams uncovers numerous incidents where the accuser flirted and even initiated sexual communications via Snapchat with the CDT. It becomes clear to Mr. Williams that the accuser is lying about the allegation in order to protect her relationship with her boyfriend. Williams presents this evidence to the prosecution who later dismisses the case only to later re-prefer additional charges with an additional accuser. Mr. Williams understands that the Government is attempting to bolster their incredibly weak case with a fresh allegation from a new accuser. Williams again investigates the new allegation and learns that the new accuser lied to law enforcement and deleted highly relevant text messages between her and the CDT. Text messages that show she invited the CDT to her room the night of the allegation. Additionally, Mr. Williams finds sexually provocative photographs that the new accuser texted to the CDT. Additionally, Williams finds witnesses who will testify that during the night in question, the new accuser was seducing the accused by rubbing his inner thigh, whispering in his ear, and even pressing against him. Mr. Williams files several motions detailing these incidents whichf which the Government was completely unaware of.
Sex crime
U.S. v. E-7, United States Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois (Sexual Assault)
Feb 19, 2019
OUTCOME: NOT GUILTY of Sexual Assault. NO Sex Offender Registration. Only minimal punishment for other charged offenses.
MSgt (E-7) is accused of importing steroids, illegally possessing prescription diet pills, battering, threatening and sexually assaulting his spouse. Three years earlier, spouse suspects husband of ha...ving an affair and begins collecting evidence to gain leverage over him in divorce proceedings. Spouse places baby monitors in various rooms of the house and records all conversations accused has. Additionally, spouse secretly records husband and her arguing to include the alleged assault and threats. Spouse also secretly takes pictures of the MSgt apparently using steroids. During divorce proceedings, spouse threatens to disclose all evidence unless MSgt agrees to the divorce settlement. MSgt agrees. Three years later, MSgt is under investigation for “doctor shopping” for prescription diet pills. During the investigation, OSI interviews MSgt’s former spouse who turns over all evidence that she collected three years earlier; however, she makes an additional allegation of sexual assault. Spouse is unable to articulate how many times the sexual assaults occurred, but does detail at least one event. Once notified of the allegation of sexual assault, MSgt retains Mr. Mickey Williams. Mr. Williams immediately begins reviewing the evidence and interviewing witnesses. All witnesses state that MSgt is a great Airmen with no known history of violence. None of the evidence reviewed indicate that there ever was a sexual assault. Williams attempts to interview the spouse who refuses to participate, although she cooperates with the Government and OSI over and over. At trial, Mr. Williams is able to demonstrate how implausible the spouse’s sexual assault allegation is. There were no recordings, pictures, or even complaints about any sexual misconduct prior to OSI interviewing the spouse. Additionally, Williams is able to keep out various other allegations of misconduct the client allegedly commits while married to spouse to include a DUI arrest that occurred a week before trial.
Military law
U.S. v. E-3, United States Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton, San Diego, California (Malingering and Article 92)
Jan 11, 2019
OUTCOME: CHARGES WITHDRAWN and Case DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement. Client is ALLOWED TO MEDICALLY RETIRE with FULL BENEFITS.
Lance Corporal is accused of malingering and failing to obey a lawful order when someone sees him playing football while off-duty. LnCpl had suffered a shoulder injury while in Marine Recon school tha...t caused him to endure months of physical therapy without success. Eventually, LnCpl undergoes shoulder surgery that does not remedy his shoulder issues. LnCpl is granted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) that recommends a medical retirement from the Marine Corps. Two weeks prior to LnCpl’s retirement date, the Command moves to give him Non-Judicial Punishment, also known as an Article 15, because they believe that he is faking his injury. His Command seeks to punish him and strip him of his medical retirement. LnCpl immediately retains Mr. Mickey Williams. Mr. Williams begins interviewing several witnesses, including the doctor who performed the surgery who corroborates LnCpl’s story. Mr. Williams also reviews the medical records and all evidence the Government plans to use to support the Article 15. Prior to the Article 15 hearing, the Command tries to intimidate LnCpl into taking the Article 15 and his supervisors mock and laugh at his chances of success at trial. Based on the strength of his evidence and weakness of the Government’s case, and based on Mr. William’s advice, LnCpl demands trial by court-martial and turns down the NJP. The Government then prefers and refers charges for a Court-Martial. Mr. Williams requests that the Government interview the client’s doctor who will testify that he is not faking his injury, thereby entirely destroying the Government’s case.
Military law
U.S. v. E-6, United States Navy, Fort Meade, Maryland (Drug Use)
Dec 20, 2018
OUTCOME: Allegations UNSUBSTANTIATED. FULLY RETAINED. No Loss of Benefits, No Loss of Medical Retirement, No Punishment.
Petty Officer is accused of wrongfully using cocaine after his positive urinalysis. Petty Officer has over 15 years of active duty service and served numerous tours overseas to include Iraq. While ove...rseas the Petty Officer injured his back that required multiple back surgeries. He is then prescribed multiple pain medications over nine years to include the highly addictive fentanyl. The over prescription of drugs and the poor results of multiple back surgeries cause debilitating effects for the Petty Officer. The drugs lower his testosterone levels, upset his brain chemistry, and give him an addiction that he tries to cure, but unsuccessfully. He visits his pain management doctor at Walter Reed and they discuss Kratom, a natural substance known for its ability to aid during opioid withdrawals. Based on the advice of his doctor, the Petty Officer begins to take Kratom. However, one of the batches of Kratom that the Petty Officer ingests is tainted with a very low amount of cocaine which causes the positive urinalysis test. Petty Officer explains this to his command who is unsympathetic and attempts to separate him from the Navy. If he gets separated, he would lose all medical benefits and an approved Medical Retirement. Petty Officer retains Mr. Mickey Williams. Mickey Williams begins working the case and interviews several witnesses. Williams interviews the uncooperative doctor who will not testify on the client’s behalf because Kratom is a prohibited substance in the Navy. Additionally, the command refuses to test the tainted Kratom that would prove the client was telling the truth. The SJA office and the client’s command refuses to turn over any evidence to Mr. Williams. Williams obtains copies of his client’s medical records that indicate that he has discussed taking Kratom with his doctor. Williams also finds a witness who will testify that his client and the doctor discussed Kratom. Mr. Williams is also able to find a home drug test kit that proves the Kratom is laced with cocaine. At the separation board, Mr. Williams points out the gross callousness of the Navy who was willing to end the Petty Officer’s career but not give him the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Williams points out to the board how the Government played games in attempting to deny the client any of the evidence to defend himself.
Military law
U.S. v. D.J. (O-5), Atlanta, Georgia (Toxic Leadership)
Dec 15, 2018
OUTCOME: Officer fully retained in service and allowed to retire.
D.J. hires private Shewmaker & Shewmaker to represent her before administrative separation hearing for toxic leadership. After a full hearing, lasting three days, administrative separation board retain...s D.J. Board determines that the O-5 was not a toxic leader and did not engage in the conduct for which alleged.
Domestic violence
U.S. v. E-7, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia (Domestic Violence)
Nov 30, 2018
OUTCOME: Allegations UNSUBSTANTIATED. Client is RETAINED. NO Involuntary Separation, NO loss of VA benefits, NO loss of Medical benefits, NO loss of military benefits, NO loss of retirement.
Sergeant First Class in the 75th Ranger Regiment, is accused of slamming his wife’s head into a wall two times, choking her, punching her in the face several times, and preventing her from leaving the ...house. SFC denies the allegations but a police officer who was dispatched to the SFC’s home states that the SFC admitted to the officer that he hit his wife several times which led to his arrest. The police officer also takes pictures at the scene that included dents in a wall and pictures of his wife’s face. The command immediately moves to separate SFC from the Army. SFC immediately retains Mr. Robert Capovilla to represent him. Mr. Capovilla and Mr. Mickey Williams begin working on his case. They discover that the story the client’s wife tells compared to the evidence collected does not match. Nothing in the photographs indicate that the wife was punched several times. They learn that the wife had been caught cheating on her husband numerous times and that most who knew her believed her to be a dishonest person. Capovilla and Williams also discover that client’s wife made a false police report in the past. Only two days before the scheduled hearing, the Government reveals that the wife would not be testifying and instead submitted a letter describing the events that occurred that night. The wife states in her letter that her injuries included knots on her head, hemorrhages in both her eyes, a concussion and bruises all over her body. She also makes additional allegations, including rape. At the hearing Mr. Williams aggressively cross-examines the police officer and elicits how client’s wife displayed virtually no injuries and how the police officer could not clearly recall what happened that night. Williams introduces character statements that describe the wife as dishonest and untrustworthy. He also displays photographs of the wife the day after the incident that demonstrate she suffered none of the injuries she claimed in her letter.
Military law
U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia (Drug Possession and Distribution)
Oct 15, 2018
OUTCOME: Government WITHDRAWS its Charges and DISMISSES THE CASE. NO Involuntary Separation, NO Federal Conviction. Client is allowed to head home after his ETS date with an Honorable Discharge and FULL MILITARY BENEFITS.
The SGT, a 27D JAG Paralegal in the 75th Ranger Regiment, is accused of distributing cocaine to numerous other Rangers within the regiment, introducing cocaine onto a Federal installation, attempting t...o distribute cocaine, and unlawfully storing a personally owned weapon in his vehicle. Even after the SGT’s ETS date had passed, the Government keeps SGT in the Army past his ETS date and prefers charges against him. SGT retains Mr. Mickey Williams to represent him. Mr. Williams begins investigating the case and contacting various witnesses. It becomes clear that the Government’s case heavily relies on the credibility of one witness, another Ranger. This witness had previously been punished for using cocaine. At the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, the Government calls this witness to testify that he purchased cocaine from the client. Mr. Williams aggressively cross-examines this supposed “snitch”. During William’s aggressive and lengthy cross-examination, the “snitch” gives in, and finally admits to Williams in this open hearing that he originally told another Ranger that he got the cocaine from someone else at the party, not from the client. Williams pushes even farther, forcing the “snitch” to admit that he would absolutely lie to law enforcement before he would lie to another Ranger. Williams highlighted the “snitch’s” lack of credibility and inconsistencies during his closing argument at the end of the Article 32 hearing. Williams also hammers home how the Government failed to meet its burden of proof, and how the Government’s entire case relied on this “snitch,” an admitted liar.
