A senior Army noncommissioned officer faced seven specifications at a general court-martial, including allegations of sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, and aggravated assault. The defense challenged the process used to prefer the charges. All seven were dismissed without prejudice and were not re-preferred.

The challenge

The firm had represented the service member in related family proceedings and used contemporaneous records from those matters alongside military investigative materials to examine the allegations. The defense moved to dismiss, raising unlawful command influence and defects in the preferral process. Its submission drew on witness accounts, prior sworn statements, medical information, domestic-violence pleadings, civil restraints, and records from proceedings in two countries. The motion did not itself produce a judicial finding that unlawful command influence had occurred. A central question was whether the commander who signed the charge sheet as accuser believed the charges were true and had acted independently.

At an Article 39(a) hearing, the commander testified that she considered the investigation incomplete, had received defense information that cast doubt on the allegations, and believed she had no meaningful choice when she signed the charges. The military judge questioned whether the charges had been validly preferred. Government counsel acknowledged a substantial issue with the process and the possibility that the government would need to begin again. The defense also tested the complaining witness's account against prior proceedings, including her acknowledgment that she had struck the service member with a broomstick.

After dismissal

All charges were dismissed without prejudice in January 2022. The Army then reinvestigated and considered bringing charges again. The firm assembled a further command-level presentation from the military and family litigation records and argued against renewed criminal prosecution. The charges were not re-preferred. The Army's decision followed further investigation and command consideration.

The Army instead pursued a separate General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand. The firm submitted a rebuttal, but the reprimand was directed for permanent filing. The command later documented that the judicial matters had been dismissed and no criminal charges were pending or being pursued.

Result

All seven court-martial specifications were dismissed without prejudice and were not re-preferred after reinvestigation. A separate administrative reprimand was permanently filed.

View additional Case Results from The Cody Law Firm.

Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend on the particular facts and legal circumstances of each matter.