Military Criminal Defense Attorney | Military Courts-Martial Defense Lawyer

Military Criminal 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

As a former prosecutor with the US Army JAG Corps and the US Attorney's Office, Attorney Calcagni is well versed in the prosecution and defense of all types of military criminal cases. This experience is invaluable in his ability to defend accused individuals on trial in Military Court for all types of crimes.

Types of Military Cases we handle:

Courts-Martial Defense (Types)
Administrative Separation Actions
Criminal and Administrative Appeals
Articles 15
Memoranda of Reprimands
Board of Corrections of Military Records (BCMR) Petitions
ROTC Disenrollment Hearings
Article 32 Pretrial Investigations
Post-Trial Clemency Petitions

U.S. Army Recruiter RETAINED Following Administrative Separation Board

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class Recruiter, with 17 years of service, was referred for administrative separation from military service. The Recruiter was alleged to have engaged in an inappropriate and unlawful relationship with a female recruit. The Recruiter's Commander initiated an investigation into specific allegations the Recruiter unlawfully took the female recruit to parties; invited her to his home; spent time working out with her at a local civilian gym; and engaged in romantic relations together. Once the recruit shipped off to basic training, the Recruiter allegedly maintained contact with her; assisted her with going AWOL; and stating lies and falsified documents to conceal the alleged misconduct.

The Commander's investigation yielded sufficient evidence, in the investigator's opinion, to substantive charges against the Recruiter for fraternizing with the recruit, making false official statements, and falsifying a leave/pass form. The Recruiter was referred for Non-Judicial Punishment pursuant to Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The Recruiter's Brigade Commander served as the Article 15 Hearing Officer. After reviewing evidence presented by the government related to the charges, and "allegedly" reviewing exculpatory evidence submitted by the Recruiter in his behalf, the Article 15 Officer found the Recruiter guilty of all charges and specifications. Thereafter, the Commander relieved the Recruiter from his recruiting position and referred him for administrative separation from the U.S. Army with a recommendation that his military service be characterized as Other Than Honorable (OTH). The Recruiter demanded his right to an administrative separation board and hired Attorney John L. Calcagni III to represent him at this proceeding.

At the hearing, the government relied upon both the recruiter's Article 15 convictions and related evidence to support the government’s request that the Recruiter be discharged from military service with an OTH. Attorney Calcagni delicately cross-examined each of three government witnesses, all whom testified that the Recruiter had committed inexcusable misconduct and therefore, should be separated from future military service. However, each witness conceded on cross-examination that their opinions and recommendations were based in whole on the Recruiter’s Article 15 convictions.

In the Recruiter's defense, Attorney Calcagni and his military defense counsel counterpart, Captain Jason S. Ballard – with whom Calcagni has a longstanding working relationship and proven track record – called two character witnesses. Both witnesses, former members of the Recruiter's chain of command, testified that the Recruiter was a flawless Non-Commissioned Officer, exceptional asset to the U.S. Army and recruiting community, and should be retained without question for future military service. One character witness further testified that decisions to refer the Recruiter for both an Article 15 and administrative separation may have been product of a biased command climate.

Attorney Calcagni presented further evidence that challenged the integrity of the Recruiter's Article 15 hearing, as well as the reliability of government’s evidence relied upon by the Article 15 officer, especially when compared to overwhelming evidence that exculpated the Recruiter from any wrongdoing. Attorney Calcagni – in a bold and brave manner – also challenged the credibility and veracity of the Recruiter’s chain of command, many of whom had made prejudicial remarks to recruiter before and during the Article 15 hearing; testified inconsistently with the evidence presented; and apparently engaged in coercion or other inappropriate actions during the course of investigation leading up to and following the Article 15 hearing.

After sworn testimony from the Recruiter himself, and a passionate and compelling closing argument by Attorney Calcagni claiming that "perception is not realty," "members in uniform are not impervious to human weaknesses of misrepresentation, bias, prejudice and self-interest,” and that the Recruiter was “entitled to a fair shake” both at the Article 15 hearing and at his separation hearing, the separation board members voted that the Recruiter did not engage in the thrust of the charged misconduct and should be retained for further military service in his recruiting capacity.

RESULT: After hearing Sergeant Retained for further military service in his recruiting capacity.

See more Case Results

Contact Military Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni him by Email or call today at (401) 351-5100 to schedule a FREE CONSULTATION.

About Military Trials and Defense

Judge Advocate General, or JAG, is a term used to describe members of the military’s legal branch. Military lawyers who serve in this branch of the legal system are called JAGs as well. When member's of the armed forces is accused of a crime, or disciplinary charges are levied against them, they will need the assistance of an attorney with a military criminal law background.

Former military lawyers and prosecutors who have experienced many facets of the military justice system make the best choices for military defense attorneys on the civilian side. Because they are well versed in the procedures, policies, and customs of the military justice system, a former JAG attorney will provide you with the best possible legal representation available from any civilian attorney.

In most cases, the military will provide you with one free legal counselor, typically new to litigation and just finishing law school. While this is not a determination of competence, it is important that you be comfortable with your attorney. Remember to ask your military attorney about their credentials, experience, and case history. After interviewing your assigned JAG counsel, if you are not satisfied with their responses or do not feel comfortable with their level of expertise, contact an experienced civilian military defense attorney for more information about what you will need to expect in terms of your individual case.

Contact Military Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni him by Email or call today at (401) 351-5100 to schedule a FREE CONSULTATION.

Finding a Military Defense Attorney

When you begin to search for a competent civilian attorney to defend your military case, it is imperative that they have former JAG experience. Everything about the military justice system, from the offenses and punishments, to the rules of procedure and evidence, is different from that of the civilian criminal justice system. While the criminal justice system on the civilian side uses one code, on the military side, there is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which sets the entire determination of criminal conduct, establishment of courts, and what procedures will be followed.

The difference between an administrative discharge and a punitive discharge or dismissal for instance, is that an administrative discharge is a separation from duty that can be carried out by a commanding officer against a military member for any activity that could be deemed inappropriate for that service member, be it military or civilian activity. Under this type of discharge, a service person can receive either an Honorable, General, or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions service characterization. The determining factor will be how serious the criminal activity or inappropriate conduct was when taken in comparison with the overall service record of the military member.

Alternatively, a punitive discharge can only be decided by a court martial. These discharges also have two separate types, Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD), or Dishonorable Discharge (DD). A BCD can only be adjudged by either a Special Court Martial or a General Court Martial, yet a DD can be decided only at a General Court Martial, and an officer cannot receive either type of discharge. The only equivalent type of charge for officers is called a Dismissal, and they are never heard before a Special Court Martial.

Contact Military Criminal Defense Lawyer John L. Calcagni him by Email or call today at (401) 351-5100 to schedule a FREE CONSULTATION.

There are many other varied and complex procedures and terminology when dealing with military criminal law situations. For this reason, if your attorney has not had exposure to this environment as a former active duty JAG attorney, there is nothing they will be able to accomplish on your behalf. Without this specialized military law background, it would be nearly impossible for them to navigate the military criminal justice system and provide you with any kind of competent defense.

If you are a member of the military and have been accused of a crime, speak to your assigned counsel to determine whether you are comfortable with their abilities and interaction. If you are not, finding a qualified and experienced military criminal defense attorney should be the next step you take.

Contact Former JAG Corps Prosecutor John L. Calcagni for Military Criminal Defense 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