PRO

Timothy James Bilecki's Legal Cases (543)

Call for a consultation Call (813) 669-5859 Message View Profile

Military law

Bilecki Wins Suppression of NCIS Interrogation on Article 120b Rape of a Child GCM at Naval Station Norfolk

Aug 25, 2023

OUTCOME: NCIS interrogation suppressed in full. Article 62 Government appeal denied at NMCCA. All Article 120b charges dismissed. No conviction. No SORNA.

This was a Navy E-6 facing a referred general court martial on Article 120b rape of a child and sexual abuse of a child. The alleged victim was the biological daughter of our client's ex-wife. The alle ... ged conduct was placed in 2015 to 2016, when the alleged victim was approximately six years old and our client was her stepfather in Washington State. Maximum exposure on conviction: life confinement, mandatory dishonorable discharge, federal sex offender registration, and federal felony record. The Government's case rested on the alleged victim's account. The matter was reported in March 2021, roughly five years after the alleged conduct, after the alleged victim disclosed to her mother and stepfather during a "stranger danger" conversation. A forensic interview followed in April 2021. The alleged victim's account in that interview described touching and rubbing only. By the Trial Counsel's January 2023 disclosure interview, twenty-two months later, the account had evolved to include digital penetration of both incidents. Trial Counsel later told the court on the record that the Government had no physical or corroborating evidence and that suppression of our client's NCIS statement "prevents the Government from corroborating the alleged victim's account in which there is a delayed report of nearly 5 years." Our client retained Bilecki. The defense team filed a Motion to Suppress under M.R.E. 304(f), the Fifth Amendment, Article 31(b), and the government-agent doctrine. The defense theory of the suppression motion was three findings the case folder put the Military Judge in position to make. Our client had clearly invoked counsel during the NCIS interrogation: "I do need a lawyer for this though, I think." NCIS continued questioning after the invocation. Our client's Victim Legal Counsel (assigned to him in a prior, separate matter where he had been the victim of a recording offense aboard his submarine) called back to NCIS during the interrogation, and the NCIS Special Agent sent the call to voicemail mid-interrogation, blocking our client's access to his own attorney while the questioning continued. Tim Bilecki traveled to Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia for the Motion to Suppress hearing. In late August 2023, the Military Judge granted the Defense Motion to Suppress in full. The MJ's findings: NCIS "blatantly violated the accused unequivocal request for counsel"; the agents "knowingly and willingly prevented this Sailor from speaking to his attorney ... They do not get to decide the relationship between an attorney and the attorney's client"; the suppression remedy was "a harsh punishment but ... a required one due to the egregious nature of the violations and to properly deter police misconduct." For a Navy E-6 facing a referred general court martial on UCMJ Article 120b rape of a child and Article 120b sexual abuse of a child with life confinement exposure, mandatory Dishonorable Discharge, lifetime federal sex offender registration, and federal felony record on the line, the conviction at general court martial and the SORNA registration were the actual exposure. Neither materialized.

Military law

General Court Martial Charges Dismissed After Florida Declines Child Abuse Prosecution

Aug 18, 2023

OUTCOME: Charges withdrawn and dismissed per the pretrial agreement. GOMOR permanently filed. No court-martial conviction.

An Army Staff Sergeant stationed in the Tampa area was accused of sexually abusing his minor stepdaughter during a divorce and custody fight. Florida law enforcement investigated first. The Florida Sta ... te Attorney declined prosecution because the evidence did not establish probable cause. A Florida child forensic interviewer also found no indicators of child abuse or maltreatment and concluded that the allegation of sexual abuse and child exploitation was not substantiated. The allegation still moved into the military system. Charges were preferred, and the case went to an Article 32 preliminary hearing. At that hearing, Trial Counsel opened by saying, "reasonable minds may differ." The allegation was serious, but the proof had problems. Florida had already declined prosecution. The child forensic interview did not substantiate the allegation. The allegation came out of a family breakdown, with divorce, custody, and motive issues sitting in the middle of the case. The Army referred the case to a General Court-Martial. Bilecki was retained during the Article 32 phase. The defense went at the allegation through the materials Florida had already reviewed, the child forensic interview, the divorce and custody timeline, and the gaps in the Army investigation. Army CID relied heavily on statements, but the investigation did not do the corroboration work the facts required. There was no useful home layout, no meaningful crime-scene documentation, missed witness development, and interview work that left major questions unanswered. After months of litigation, Bilecki negotiated a signed pretrial agreement that changed the entire posture of the case. This was not a guilty plea. The agreement withdrew and dismissed the General Court-Martial charges and moved the case to a General Officer Article 15, where the Staff Sergeant could plead not guilty and present his defense. The agreement also barred disposition by GOMOR while the case proceeded under the agreed General Officer Article 15 process. The command then started down that agreed path. The Staff Sergeant received the Article 15 first reading. He signed his elections. The defense submitted Article 15 rebuttal matters. The second reading was scheduled. The second reading was postponed. Defense counsel tried to get the proceeding rescheduled and tried to get answers from the command. For nearly two months, the Staff Sergeant remained flagged, past his ETS, still in the Tampa area, and waiting to learn whether the Army would honor the agreement it had signed. The new Commanding General purported to withdraw from the signed agreement, took the position that substantial performance had not occurred, and then issued a GOMOR. Bilecki submitted the GOMOR rebuttal in August 2023. The rebuttal challenged both parts of the case: the allegation and the process. On the facts, Florida had declined prosecution, the child forensic interview did not substantiate sexual abuse, the allegation arose in the middle of divorce and custody litigation, and the Army's own trial counsel had serious doubts about the case after Article 32. On the process, the command had already accepted the agreement Bilecki negotiated, issued the Article 15 first reading, received the signed elections, received the defense Article 15 matters, and then changed course after the Commanding General changed. The Staff Sergeant was an intelligence analyst with a strong record. He had briefed senior leaders, earned early promotions, graduated near the top of his leadership courses, completed a master's degree, started doctoral coursework, and had already been selected for Warrant Officer. The pending case had left him flagged and past ETS. The GOMOR threatened the career he had built and the Warrant Officer path he had already earned. The GOMOR was permanently filed. The case began as a referred General Court-Martial for child sexual abuse allegations. It ended as an administrative reprimand. No court-martial conviction. No guilty plea. No Article 120b conviction. No sex-offense conviction.

Military law

Article 128 NJP Sentence Suspended After Bilecki Proves Self-Defense

Aug 18, 2023

OUTCOME: Article 128 NJP sentence suspended on appeal. Sailor continued in service.

A Navy Petty Officer Third Class assigned to USS HOPPER at Pearl Harbor was threatened in a shipboard group chat, confronted later that night in the Arizona Hall parking lot, shoved repeatedly, and for ... ced to defend himself. The command still sent him to Captain's Mast for Article 128 assault consummated by battery. The incident started in a shipboard group chat. What began as junior Sailor trash talk turned into something else when another Sailor threatened to shoot our client and talked about sending "10 hot ones" to his face. Other Sailors in the chat told him to stand down. Later that night, our client went to the Arizona Hall parking lot to retrieve his ballcap from a shipmate's car. The same Sailor showed up with his girlfriend, got out of his truck, closed distance, got in our client's face, and shoved him. Our client did not swing first. He put his hands up, told the other Sailor to get back, and told the girlfriend to call the duty staff at Arizona Hall. She did not call. She stood there and watched. The other Sailor kept pressing. He shoved our client again, then again. When he closed distance in a striking posture, our client punched him. The fight went to the ground. After the fight ended, the other Sailor picked up our client's wallet and tried to leave with it. The wallet had his CAC, Social Security card, credit cards, and cash. Our client went after him, restrained him, demanded the wallet back, and let him go once the wallet was returned. The other Sailor then kicked and destroyed our client's camera, valued at approximately $2,500. Our client did not chase him down after that. He did not restart the fight. He called police and notified his chain of command. The command processed the case through the Disciplinary Review Board, Executive Officer's Inquiry, and Captain's Mast. The Commanding Officer awarded non-judicial punishment for Article 128 assault consummated by battery. Bilecki was retained for the NJP appeal after Captain's Mast. The appeal put the actual sequence back in front of the appellate authority: the group chat threats, the parking lot confrontation, the first shove, the repeated shoves, the girlfriend standing there after being told to call duty staff, the wallet, the destroyed camera, the responding military police report, and our client's decision to call police and notify his chain of command. The appeal forced the command to deal with the facts: our client did not start the physical fight. He was threatened first. He was confronted later. He was shoved first. He asked for help. He used force only after the other Sailor kept closing distance and shoving him. After the fight, the other Sailor took his wallet and destroyed his camera. Our client called police. That was the record the command should have dealt with from the beginning. The appellate authority suspended the NJP sentence imposed at Captain's Mast. Our client continued in service.

Military law

Army SGT Faces Assault Claim After Wall-to-Wall Counseling, Gets Acquittal

Jul 14, 2023

OUTCOME: The mixed officer and enlisted panel came back with a resounding NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS.

Within military culture, there is a clear and definitive subculture that is fully supported by military leadership though it may technically run afoul of the UCMJ. When commands decide to prosecute, su ... ch encouraged actions are as fickle and capricious as one might imagine. In this case, an Army Staff Sergeant engaged in a session of “wall-to-wall counseling” with a young Specialist who well deserved an introduction to this subculture. Unfortunately for our client, this is one of the times a command decided to pretend they never heard of such matters. They prosecuted our client, and he was on the verge of losing everything. Thankfully, he reached out to Bilecki, and we were able to secure a full acquittal and a major win for the old school. The case details are that the Specialist showed up late for formation at Fort Polk, Louisiana, smelling of alcohol and embodying the term “shitbird.” He was notorious for disrespecting NCOs, tardiness, fighting and integrity violations. Attempting to instruct the Specialist and maintain military order and discipline, the SSG implemented some corrective training, AKA “getting smoked.” The Specialist proceeded to act like a complete clown while mocking the SSG and telling him that he could kick his ass. Little did he know that the SSG was more than happy to oblige the young Specialist. The Specialist was also unaware that the SSG was a prior Marine Sergeant and MCMAP black belt instructor. Our client released the formation and took the Specialist over to a single-head latrine inside the CG room for a “wall-to-wall counseling session.” With the Specialist’s team leader right outside the door, the SSG asked the Specialist, “What’s up…”. However, before he could finish the phrase “with you,” the Specialist came at the SSG with a punch. That’s when he was introduced to the SSG’s hand-to-hand combat capabilities. The SSG absolutely destroyed the Specialist, and, as you would expect, the Specialist went crying to command for being held to task. That the prosecution and command took up this case is a travesty of justice, but they did. The SSG was charged with aggravated assault and maltreatment of a subordinate. It was a three-day trial at Fort Polk where we kicked the prosecution’s ass almost as badly as the SSG beat the Specialist. The mixed officer and enlisted panel came back with a resounding NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES AND SPECIFICATIONS. This case serves as a stark reminder to all junior enlisted personnel to think twice before provoking their NCOs into a fight. It’s also a win for the old school, old corps, and every hard-hitting subculture that maintains military order.

Military law

Bilecki Wins Pretrial Dismissal of Seven-Specification GCM Including Article 120b Sexual Assault of a Child and CSAM at MCBH

Jul 07, 2023

OUTCOME: All seven GCM specifications dismissed. Plea to a single simple battery at Summary Court-Martial. No SORNA.

A Marine Corporal at MCB Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay was facing a referred general court-martial on seven specifications across four UCMJ Articles. Article 120b sexual assault of a child (2 specifications) aga ... inst a fifteen-year-old. Article 134 wrongful possession of child pornography. Article 120 sexual assault without consent (3 specifications) against two separate adult complainants. Article 131b obstruction of justice. Maximum exposure on conviction: decades of confinement, mandatory Dishonorable Discharge, federal sex offender registration, and federal felony record. The Government alleged that our client had had a sexual relationship with a fifteen-year-old high school student, that the digital images supporting the Article 134 specification had been recovered from his phone, and that he had then disposed of dash cameras and home security cameras to obstruct the investigation. Government witnesses identified our client. Government experts produced DNA results and forensic phone reviews. NCIS had recorded interviews with all three alleged victims and undercover communications. Our client retained Bilecki and we worked the case across each alleged victim and each major Government exhibit. On the Article 120b specifications, the alleged victim was a high school student. The defense theory was mistake of fact as to age. She presented as eighteen on Snapchat. She had purchased vape products at the legal age (twenty-one in Hawaii). Three Marines who video chatted with her, including our client, all believed her to be eighteen. Our client introduced her to coworkers, conduct inconsistent with knowing she was fifteen. The Government's M.R.E. 414 motion to admit the Article 120b conduct as propensity evidence was contested by defense Motion in Limine on the shifting age representations. The Government's principal witness on the Article 131b obstruction was a former civilian and military loss prevention officer who had become a Marine CID Special Agent during his cooperation with the Government in this case. He had recorded our client without disclosing that the cameras were on, telling our client "it's not even on" while they were. The defense Motion to Suppress framed him as a de facto government agent and moved to exclude his recorded statements under M.R.E. 304 and Article 31(b). Defense expert consultants in child psychology were retained on the Article 120b mistake of fact theory. The motion practice produced Government filings on M.R.E. 404(b), M.R.E. 412, and false-exculpatory-statement instructions. The Article 39(a) motions session was set for mid-July 2023. Tim Bilecki traveled to MCB Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay for the Summary Court-Martial. The plea was entered at the Summary Court-Martial. For a Marine Corporal at MCB Hawaii facing a seven-specification GCM that paired Article 120b sexual assault of a child with Article 134 CSAM, three Article 120 specifications, and Article 131b obstruction, mandatory Dishonorable Discharge exposure on conviction, federal sex offender registration on the line, and an Article 39(a) motions session pending, that was a different ending than the one the Government was driving toward.

Military law

Bilecki Represents Army Specialist Facing Six Article 120b Child Sexual Assault Specifications at Fort Sill

Jul 07, 2023

OUTCOME: Investigation-stage and pre-preferral representation only.

This was an Army Specialist at Fort Sill under a CID investigation that produced six preferred specifications under Article 120b alleging sexual conduct against minor children. Maximum exposure on a re ... ferred Article 120b sexual assault of a child conviction at general court martial: decades of confinement, mandatory Dishonorable Discharge, federal felony record, and Tier III lifetime federal sex offender registration. Our client retained Bilecki at the CID investigation stage. We engaged at the investigation and pre-preferral stages. We filed a Notice of Representation to CID and a supplemental Notice of Representation to the Special Victim Prosecutor's office at Fort Sill. Our client invoked Article 31 at the CID interview. Counsel was requested at the outset. No statement was given. The defense assembled a character package across community and chaplain references and prepared a Military Protective Order modification request. Charges were preferred in early July 2023. Six specifications under Article 120b alone. The engagement concluded after preferral. Our client proceeded with different counsel.

Military law

Bilecki Preserves Suppression Record on AF MSgt at RAF Lakenheath; Mixed-Findings Trial Result Overturned on Appeal

Jun 30, 2023

OUTCOME: Mixed findings after fully contested trial. Sentenced to two years confinement and a dishonorable discharge. Paroled in less than one year. Case overturned on appeal in April 2026.

This was a high risk Air Force digital evidence case involving CSAM allegations, Yahoo account attribution, VPN evidence, a companion prosecution in Korea, and confinement exposure realistically measur ... ed in decades. This was not a normal single location court-martial. The allegations touched the United States, the United Kingdom, and Korea. The companion case was tried in Korea, the court-martial was tried at RAF Lakenheath, and the underlying digital evidence reached across multiple locations, accounts, devices, and networks. The companion case mattered. The Air Force E-8 co-accused went through two fully contested trials in Korea. The cases were intertwined, the digital evidence overlapped, and the government ultimately ordered our client to testify against the co-accused. That forced the defense to travel to Korea and fight part of the larger case there as well. The facts were bad. The government had enough ugliness in the record to hope the members would stop at disgust and never force it to prove the hard parts. That was the danger. In a case like this, emotion can do a lot of the prosecution's work unless the defense drags the panel back to proof. Tim Bilecki did not let that happen. This was not the kind of case that could be defended with one lawyer and a few cross examinations. Tim Bilecki assembled a full defense team with a digital forensic examiner, a forensic psychiatrist, and additional support necessary to challenge the government's attribution theory, forensic assumptions, mental health issues, and overall narrative. We treated the Article 32 like it mattered, because it did. We attacked the government's theory early, forced the issues into the open, and made clear that this was not going to be a quiet march to conviction. The government responded by preferring additional charges, which forced a second Article 32 hearing and even more litigation before the case ever got to trial. One of the biggest fights centered on the government's use of the Yahoo evidence. The defense position was that investigators had search authority tied to the co-accused, then used that authority to rummage through our client's account history from end to end and build a separate prosecution around whatever inflammatory material they found. Bilecki litigated that issue aggressively and won the suppression motion. Had that ruling held, most of the government's digital evidence would have stayed out. The government appealed, won, and put the evidence back in play. That changed the shape of the case dramatically and forced the defense to try it the hard way. This was not a clean acquittal story. It was a high risk digital evidence case involving a companion prosecution in Korea, two Article 32 fights, a major suppression win that got reversed on appeal, multiple experts, and a defense team that still stood in and fought the entire case through verdict. In a case where the government was trying to bury our client, Bilecki kept the result far below where this case could have landed. We meticulously preserved the issues on the record and in April 2026, the case was overturned on appeal.

Military law

Bilecki Closes Article 115 Communicating a Threat Investigation on Army First Lieutenant

Jun 16, 2023

OUTCOME: No charges. No NJP. No GOMOR. No officer elimination. Officer retained on active duty.

This was an Army First Lieutenant at Fort Riley under an active Army investigation for Article 115 communicating a threat. For an O-1 in his first tour, an Article 115 referral can route through court ... martial, NJP, GOMOR, or AR 600-8-24 officer elimination. Each route can end an officer's commission. Our client retained Bilecki within forty-eight hours of the detention, before any disposition recommendation went up. The alleged victim was a Soldier inside our client's chain, and the report came out of a domestic-pattern argument the two of them were in the middle of when the MPs arrived. She had her own drinking and prior-reports record on the table, and she had a documented retaliation pattern the unit had not yet seen. The defense put that record in front of the SJA and the chain before any disposition recommendation went up. For an Army First Lieutenant in his first tour facing an Article 115 communicating a threat investigation that opened with an MP detention at on-post quarters and routed for disposition decision through the SJA, the court martial, NJP, GOMOR, and AR 600-8-24 officer elimination tracks were the actual exposure. None of them materialized.

Military law

Bilecki Holds Custody-Driven Article 120 and Decade-Long Article 128 Domestic Violence Allegations to No Court Martial Referral

Jun 09, 2023

OUTCOME: No charges preferred on Article 120 or Article 128. 8 of 8 CRB findings "did not meet criteria." Article 15 limited to Article 112a THC vape and Article 131b obstruction.

This was a Technical Sergeant facing court martial referral on Article 120 abusive sexual contact and Article 128 decade-long domestic violence allegations from his spouse. Maximum exposure if the Arti ... cle 120 / Article 128 allegations moved to court martial: years of confinement, federal felony, mandatory dishonorable discharge, and federal sex offender registration on the Article 120 conviction. The Government alleged that in July 2022, the day our client returned from a one-year tour in Korea, he had digitally penetrated his spouse without her consent at the family residence near Fairchild AFB. The Government's spouse-witness account expanded the allegation back across a decade of stations: a 2012 strangulation in his Tinker AFB dorm room; a punch in the face at a gas station near Moore, Oklahoma; a 2013 strangulation that allegedly burst blood vessels in her eyes; a 2017 incident at MCB Camp Foster, Okinawa documented in a USMC PMO incident report; and a 2020 incident at Fairchild AFB. The spouse reported the allegations to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations two days later, on the same day she was served our client's divorce petition. Our client retained Bilecki post pretrial confinement. The custody motive carried the case. The spouse had no biological or adoptive relationship to our client's daughter (the daughter from a prior marriage; sole custody had been awarded to our client by South Carolina order in 2015). The spouse had been trying to halt the divorce in the weeks leading up to the report, with text messages preserved on our client's phone. A handwritten letter from our client's daughter, dated two days before our client's return from Korea, was attached to the spouse's protective order petition, evidencing pre-positioning. A Solano County, California Child Protective Services investigation into the daughter's wellbeing returned an "unfounded" finding. A Washington Superior Court Writ of Habeas Corpus issued in late July 2022 ordered the daughter's immediate return to our client. The final Washington divorce decree of April 2023 gave our client sole custody. The Central Registry Board was the second track. The command opened eight CRB incident determinations across the alleged adult physical, emotional, and sexual maltreatment of the spouse and the alleged child physical and emotional maltreatment of the daughter. In December 2022, all eight CRB findings came back as "did not meet criteria" for DoD Central Registry reporting. The Article 120 abusive sexual contact and the Article 128 decade-long domestic violence allegations never went to court martial. No charges were preferred on the Article 120 / Article 128 conduct. No administrative separation followed. No GOMOR. For an Air Force Technical Sergeant facing Article 120 abusive sexual contact and Article 128 decade-long domestic violence allegations from a spouse with a documented divorce and custody motive, the Article 120 court martial conviction track, mandatory dishonorable discharge exposure, and Tier I federal sex offender registration were the actual exposure. None of it materialized.

Military law

Bilecki Closes Article 120b Sexual Abuse of a Minor Allegation Pre-Investigation on Air Force Major at Edwards AFB

May 26, 2023

OUTCOME: Matter closed pre-investigation. No OSI title. No charges. Major continued in service.

An Air Force Major at Edwards Air Force Base, California received a phone call thirteen years after the alleged conduct. The caller claimed to be an ex-girlfriend from 2010. For an O-4 with a security ... clearance and a senior career trajectory, an active Article 120b sexual abuse of a minor investigation file is a career endpoint if it gets to a referral memo. Maximum exposure if the matter ever moved to court-martial: decades of confinement, mandatory Dismissal, federal felony conviction, and federal sex offender registration. In May 2023, the caller began texting our client. Her own texts framed the matter as her mother's wrongdoing, not our client's. She told our client that her counselor had recommended she "make a disclosure," that "when we first met, it wasn't me you were talking to. My mom was using a couple of accounts pretending to be me. And she was setting me up with a lot of guys." On the phone call that followed, the caller asked our client whether her mother had paid him to date her, take pictures or videos of her, and whether they had been "real." Our client did the right thing the same day. He drove home, briefed his wife, self reported the contact in a signed Memorandum for Record to his First Sergeant, and retained civilian counsel in Colorado Springs who ran a background check on the caller. Our client retained Bilecki within days of the trigger phone call. Notice of Representation went to the servicing OSJA at Edwards AFB the following day, before any OSI investigation had been opened. No OSI investigation was titled. No charges. No NJP. No Board of Inquiry. No GOMOR. No Letter of Reprimand. The Major continued in service. For an Air Force Major with a security clearance and a senior career trajectory who walked into the firm's office with a thirteen-year-old allegation of sexual abuse of a minor on the table and the prospect of an OSI title that would have ended the career on contact, that was a different ending than the one the caller was driving toward.