Military Courts-Martial Defense Lawyer | Military Criminal Defense Attorney

COURTS-MARTIAL DEFENSE

Recent Client Testimonial

Mr. John L. Calcagni is the best legal representation to be had. He is calm, cool, precise and knows the legal system better than any attorney I have ever encountered. He provided a valuable service to me and my family, saved my career, and made it look easy. All at an affordable price. I highly recommend John L. Calcagni as the best attorney that one could retain.
- SFC, U.S. Army

See Case Results

Courts-martial are criminal trials convened by the United States Military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Courts-martial are used by all military services to prosecute criminal offenders. The UCMJ and court-martial process applies primarily to all military service members. However, there are over 10 categories of individuals who may be subject to UCMJ action including prisoners of war, military prisoners, and certain classes of civilians. These groups are subject to the jurisdiction of the military justice system no matter where the incident occurs. Courts-martial are also used in territories occupied by Soldiers enforcing martial law, or in military tribunals.

Types of Courts-Martials:

A court-martial is run similar to a civilian criminal trial. Each side is represented by lawyer; there is a full presentation and cross-examination of evidence and testimony, motions practice and arguments. Trials by court-martial are presided over by a military judge. An accused subject to prosecution by court-martial may have his case decided by a judge sitting alone or a panel of his peers (enlisted or officer panel). It is the accused’s right and decision as to who will decide his case, judge or panel. In panel cases, the trial is still presided over by a Military Judge who serves as a gatekeeper of evidence, referees the proceedings and instructs the panel on applicable law. The panel, however, then makes determinations of fact, that is, whether an accused is guilty or innocent; and if necessary, also determines the applicable sentence for offenses for which the accused is found guilty. Courts-Martial proceedings may be conducted in any location, including tents, prisons, and outdoors if necessary, and are often held in both garrison and deployed environments.

Attorney Calcagni has extensive experience with representing service members during the courts-martial process. He acquired much of his experience while serving as a military prosecutor, senior military prosecutor and also military defense counsel. He now used his vast knowledge and experience with the military justice system representing members of the armed forces who are facing prosecution. He provides these legal services to service members in all branches of the Armed Forces, serving in garrison or deployed/mobilized environments, both stateside and overseas. Attorney Calcagni carefully selects the military justice cases that his office handles to ensure that he is able to devote his time and expertise to each client to ensure that justice is served in each case. If you are a service member who has been accused of or charged with a military criminal offense, call Attorney Calcagni for a free consultation today.

Contact Former JAG Corps Prosecutor and Courts-Martial Defense Attorney John L. Calcagni by Email or call today at (401) 351-5100 to schedule a FREE CONSULTATION.

RECENT MAJOR CASE WON BY ATTORNEY CALCAGNI AND CO-COUNCIL TROY SMITH EXPLAINED IN DETAIL:

Larceny of Military Property; False Official Statement; Dereliction of Duty:
Not Guilty After Trial.

A U.S. Army Field Grade Officer received orders to PCS to a new duty station. Upon arrival, she was assigned and moved into government quarters. Notwithstanding this fact, she began receiving basic allowance for housing (BAH) at the approximate rate of $2500.00 per month. BAH is a financial benefit provided to military personnel to assist with the cost of living on the economy or in private, non-government quarters. The Officer continued to receive BAH for a period of 35 months – nearly three years. One day, while on duty, her supervisor approached her to inquire if she in fact was receiving BAH. The Officer replied “yes, but that it was subsequently taken out from her pay for housing.” The supervisor directed the Officer to contact the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to inquire into whether she was in fact receiving BAH, whether or not she was authorized to receive it, and if not, how much unauthorized funds she had received. The Officer complied with all of her supervisor’s directives and learned from DFAS that she had received nearly $100,000.00 in unauthorized BAH.

The Officer was charged with three violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Larceny of Military Property; Providing a False Official Statement to her supervisor; and Dereliction of Duty for failing to carefully monitor her monthly Leave and Earnings Statement (LES). These charges were referred for trial by General Court-Martial (GCM). The Officer was well represented at trial by the unstoppable defense “dream team” consisting of Attorney John L. Calcagni, a part-time U.S. Army Judge Advocate, and his colleague, Attorney Troy A. Smith, also an Army Judge Advocate. Attorneys Calcagni and Smith have a long history of trying cases against one another, as well as teaming up to defense Soldiers accused of crimes within the military. These attorneys make an unstoppable defense team and have a proven track record together of achieving success in the courtroom.

The Officer in this case elected her right to trial by a panel – the military equivalent of a civilian jury. The defense shaped the battlefield at trial with Attorney Calcagni’s heart-pounding and captivating opening statement. The defense characterized the governments view of the evidence as a “tale” and set the stage for its theory of innocence: the accused was unaware of the unauthorized BAH until it was brought to her attention by a supervisor; her reaction was characterized as “shocked, surprised, confused and YIKES;” she following all directives from her superiors, law enforcement personnel and DFAS regarding the BAH; had repaid most of the moneyby the time of trial; and had even assisted DFAS with re-calculating the outstanding debt to her own detriment on multiple occasions.

Once the actual trial got underway, government prosecutors presented several witnesses to establish that the Officer lived in government housing; was not entitled to BAH; and had received nearly $100,000.00 in unauthorized housing allowances over the course of 35 months. The defense team of Calcagni and Troy delivered devastating cross examinations to all government witnesses. In one instance, Attorney Calcagni turned one government witness – the Officer’s very own supervisor who brought her receipt of unauthorized BAH to light – into a defense character witness. Attorney Calcagni was able to have this witness testify unequivocally that the Officer was an outstanding military officer who was both law-abiding and truthfulness to the extent that she “doesn’t have a dishonest bone in her body.” In another instance, Attorney Smith virtually dismembered a law enforcement witness – a Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Agent – who obtained a sworn statement from the accused Officer. Though the CID Agent characterized the Officer’s statement as a confession, Attorney Smith demonstrated clearly through his surgical cross-examination questions that the CID Agent lied under oath on multiple occasions and when questioning the Officer, was more concerned about characterizing her answers to accommodate his theory of her guilt rather than learning the truth of her innocence. Following these attorneys’ examinations and upon the close of the government’s case-in-chief, Attorney Calcagni successfully moved for dismissal of the Dereliction of Duty charge for lack of evidence.

The Defense put on a strong case at trial. Though the defense has no obligation to ever present a defense and it is the government’s burden to prove the accused’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, both Attorneys Calcagni and Smith are large proponents of presenting affirmative defense evidence at trial. Their shared philosophy paid dividends for the Officer charges in this case. The defense presented evidence that the Officer never checked or scrutinized her LES for receipt of BAH. They further proved, through the testimony of the accused, her husband and voluminous bank records, that the Officer did not carefully check or scrutinize her bank records or statements either. During the 35 months that she received the unauthorized BAH, she and her family had received nearly $100,000.00 in cash windfalls from unique tax credits and other forms of disposable income. The defense further presented character witnesses on the Officer’s behalf, which included a police officer, a retired Army Colonel who served with the accused Officer, a religious leader who was a U.S. Naval Academy graduate and retired Naval Commander, and a well-respected attorney and close friend of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. These character witnesses all testified emphatically that the charges against the Officer were ludicrous and beyond her capability. They further highlighted her outstanding character for honesty and law-abidingness.

The defense closed its case with Attorney Smith’s precision-guided closing argument. This argument cast a dark cloud over the integrity of the investigation into the Officer’s receipt of unauthorized BAH. Attorney Smith quoted the Officer’s spouse that his client is considered “the Forrest Gump of the Army” for not more carefully analyzing her pay or bank records, but that she was mistaken about receiving the funds; she was distracted with other obligations in her life during the 35-month period that she received the BAH; had benefited from a number of significant financial benefits during this time period; and did “not have a dishonest bone in her body.”

The carefully constructed defense by Attorneys Calcagni and Smith sent the panel into deliberations with one mission – to acquit the Officer of the remaining charges of Larceny and Providing a False Official Statement. Several hours later, this mission was accomplished. The panel returned with a verdict consistent with the evidence presented at trial – not guilty on all counts. The charged officer was cleared of all wrongdoing and fully reinstated to her unit and position within the U.S. Army.

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN:

Rhode Island         2003
Massachusetts       2003
Connecticut           2005
New York              2005
Florida                   2008
U.S. District Court for Northern District of New York         2004
U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York            2010
U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York         2010
U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island              2008
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts            2008
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut               2009
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia                   2010
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit                           2004
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit                       2011
U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals                                 2011
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces                        2011
U.S. Supreme Court                                                             2009