Philip Douglas Cave

Philip Douglas Cave's Legal Cases (85)

Washington, DC

Military law Lawyer at Washington, DC

Practice Areas: Military Law, Administrative Law

Message View Profile
Message View Profile
Military law

Charges dismissed

Oct 18, 2024

OUTCOME: All charges were dismissed as a result of the motion. No trial, no federal conviction, no dismissal from the service.

We represented a Soldier and got his conviction for sexual assault overturned on appeal. We also represented him during the decision-making process regarding whether he would be retried. Rather than a ... retrial, the command sought to get him discharged at an administrative discharge board—we fought and won that. We also petitioned for an extraordinary writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition to stop the case. Because he is past his ETS, he has to be discharged with an Honorable Discharge. A hard four year fight to save this Soldier--and we did it with hard work, attention to detail, and zealous advocacy.

Military law

AFCCA says not enough evidence

May 01, 2024

OUTCOME: Charges dimissed with prejudice.

The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals has dismissed charges of possessing and distributing CP (contraband images) because they did not find enough evidence introduced at trial to affirm guilt beyond ... reasonable doubt. The client does not have a conviction, does not have to register as a sex offender, and will get some back pay. The lack of factual sufficiency is the hardest legal issue to win on in military appeals.

Military law

Acquittal

Mar 13, 2024

OUTCOME: Full Acquittal on All Charges. No Federal Conviction, NoDismissal, Retirement Preserved.

An Army Lieutenant Colonel is accused by the Lieutenant Colonel's ex-wife of domestic violence in the midst of a custody dispute. Cave & Freeburg, LLP. After extensive investigation and pretrial litig ... ation practice to shape the trial. Finally, at a General Court-Martial, Mr. Freeburg uses thorough cross-examinations of the alleged victim and the responding paramedics and law enforcement personnel before a very senior Army officer panel.

Military law

U.S. v. O-4, Quantico Marine Corps Base

Mar 04, 2024

OUTCOME: Charges Dismissed. No Federal Conviction, No Dishonorable Discharge, Retirement Preserved.

A Marine Major is accused of communicating threats, strangulation and other acts of alleged domestic violence. After a long investigation, the client’s retirement is put on hold and court-martial char ... ges are preferred against him. Cave & Freeburg, LLP is retained and Mr. Freeburg investigates the case before the Article 32 preliminary hearing. At the hearing, Mr. Freeburg argues both against probable cause for some of the charges and against prosecuting the case considering the interests of all involved.

Military law

Excellent result

Mar 01, 2024

OUTCOME: Minor conviction

U.S. v. E-5, United States Air Force. An Air Force Staff Sergeant is accused of the possession of CP and several misdemeanor level charges, facing fifteen years in prison. The airman retains Cave & Fr ... eeburg for the court-martial charges. At trial, Mr. Freeburg was able to show through cross-examination of the government’s digital forensic experts that there was not evidence of knowing possession of CP. Consequently, an enlisted panel acquitted the airman of the possession of CP and only convicted him of grabbing a person’s wrists and destroying a phone. He was sentenced to be reduced from E-5 to E-4 and twenty days of confinement. Result: Not Guilty of AllCP Charges, No Sex Offender Registration, No Punitive Discharge.

Military law

Charges dismissed

Feb 02, 2024

OUTCOME: The result is that the Marine cannot be prosecuted!

In 2023, U.S. v. E-6, Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia . A Marine staff sergeant’s ex-girlfriend accused him of pointing a gun at her and using indecent language to an Uber driver. At the Article 3 ... 2 hearing, with a strong defense, Mr. Freeburg has the pointing the firearm charge dismissed because there was no probable cause! However, the Marines refer the charges to a Court-Martial on the assault and indecent language charges. The prosecutors elect not to call the ex-girlfriend as a witness “because they believe they can prove the case through other witnesses.” However, Mr. Freeburg’s cross-examination shows the prosecution’s evidence is incredibly weak. Now they decide to call the ex-girlfriend as a surprise witness. Mr. Freeburg objects to her as a witness. The judge decided that a mistrial (even though the defense was “winning”) was the only remedy because of the prosecution’s errors. Undaunted, the Marine Corps sends the case to a new trial. Here Mr. Freeburg objects and asks for a dismissal of the charges based on Double Jeopardy. The judge denies the motion. Rather than wait and go through a second trial, Mr. Cave files an extraordinary writ to appeal the judge’s decision with the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. After deliberating for several months, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals grants our appeal. (Note, in a different case with the same issue the Marine military defense counsel did not file a writ but went through the trial. Their client was convicted. His case was reversed on appeal but by then he has served months in confinement.) The staff sergeant’s case shows how knowledge of filing Writs of mandamus or prohibition can be used to protect a client’s interest. Our case demonstrates how our trial and appellate experience aligns with our trial skills.

Military law

Acquittal-one of our most impactful cases

Feb 01, 2024

OUTCOME: The members of the officer/enlisted panel found the client not guilty after just six hours of deliberations.

US. v. E-6, United States Air Force, Hill Air Force Base. In a trial that made national and international news, a TSgt EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) expert is accused of setting off two improvised ... bombs in Syria at MSS Green Village, injuring three other service members and himself (the Air Force claimed that his injuries were self-inflicted). The TSgt was placed in pretrial confinement but was able to retain both Mr. Cave and Mr. Freeburg to represent him. Mr. Cave writes and files multiple motions to shape the trial while Mr. Freeburg prepares to open and close arguments and cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses. Finally, at trial in front of an Air Force panel, two excellent Air Force defense counsel, Mr. Freeburg and Mr. Cave, show that the prosecution’s case is purely circumstantial, and there is an alibi defense the prosecution had missed! The result? The members of the officer/enlised panel found the client not guilty after just six hours of deliberations.

Military law

Acquittal

Jan 06, 2024

OUTCOME: Despite the five-page charge sheet the panel took just over an hour to deliver a Not Guilty verdict!

2020, U.S. v. E-5, United States Marine Corps, Parris Island, South Carolina . Sergeant is accused of 12 specifications of making a false claim, 10 specifications of Article 124, UCMJ, 10 specification ... s of false official statement, and 10 specifications of larceny, for a total of 42 specifications! Retained early in the process an extensive game plan for an acquittal was developed. After rejecting an absurd government proposal for a plea deal, aggressive motions practice followed, setting the stage for trial. At trial, Mr. Freeburg developed the client’s defense through the prosecution’s own witnesses.

Military law

Charges dismissed

Jan 05, 2024

OUTCOME: Dismissed charges.

2020, U.S. v. O-5, Fort Belvoir. The client was accused of male-on-male sexual assault by two Soldiers. Advocacy by Mr. Cave post-Article 32, UCMJ, hearing, resulted in all charges being dismissed, and ... the client returned to full duty.

Military law

Acquittal

Jan 04, 2024

OUTCOME: Consequently, an enlisted panel acquitted the Soldier of all charges of rape and sexual assault!

2021, U.S. v. E-4, United States Army, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. An Army Specialist was charged with rape and four specifications of penetrative sexual assault, one charge of misdemeanor st ... rangulation and one charge for violating an order not to drink alcohol. At trial, Mr. Freeburg was able to show through cross-examination of the CID agent that the Soldier was manipulated into making a false confession. Mr. Freeburg was also able to successfully cross-examine the government’s expert in forensic psychology who testified as to “tonic immobility”, instead showing that the alleged victim likely froze due to past trauma.

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
Learn More About the Avvo Rating