CALL FOR A CONSULTATION : 253-317-8494

banner

2012 Case Results

Case Results For The Years 2005-2012

2010 – 2012

U.S. v. E-5 – conviction on aggravated sexual assault of a child, sodomy of a child x 2, indecent acts, indecent language; red to E-1

U.S. v. E-5 – conviction on soliciting a minor for sex, indecent language; red to E-1, 18 months confinement and BCD

U.S. v. E-5 – conviction on rape of a child, sodomy with a child x 3, indecent acts; red to E-1, total forfeitures, LWOP, DD *

U.S. v. E-5- conviction on rape of a child, sodomy with a child x 2, indecent acts x 3; red to E-1, total forfeitures, LWOP, DD *, **

U.S. v. E-4 – conviction on aggravated sexual contact and abusive sexual contact x 2; red to E-3 and 60 days confinement

2007 – 2010

U.S. v. E-3 – Discharge in lieu of court-martial; possession of child pornography

U.S. v. E-4 – Discharge in lieu of court-martial; disobey lawful order of superior officer x 2, strike superior officer, disobey lawful order of NCO x 2, willful disobedience of lawful order, AWOL

U.S. v. E-2 – red to E-1, restriction for 45 days to post; acquitted of burglary and aggravated sexual assault, guilty only of unrelated drunk on duty; post-trial disapproval of findings and sentence and post-trial Article 15 for FTR

U.S. v. E-1 – assault upon an NCO, wrongful use of MDMA, divers FTR, larceny, violation of lawful order of superior commissioned officer, AWOL

U.S. v. E-5 – red to E-1, confinement for 4 months; charged with larceny, aggravated assault, assault consummated by a battery, burglary, and conspiracy; found guilty of assault, unlawful entry, and conspiracy and acquitted of greater offenses of aggravated assault and burglary

U.S. v. E-4 – red to E-3, 60 days confinement; willful disobedience of superior officer, missing movement; post-trial Chapter 10 approved

U.S. v. E-4 – red to E-1, confinement for 15 months and BCD; possession of child pornography

U.S. v. E-4 – convicted pursuant to his pleas of AWOL x 2, FTR, wrongful use of marijuana x 2, domestic assault, and acquitted of aggravated assault with a loaded weapon; red to E-1, confinement for 10 months, and BCD

U.S. v. E-3 – red to E-1, confinement for 8 months and BCD; attempted murder/ violation of regulation (weapon on post)

U.S. v. E-8 – reprimanded, red to E-7, and confinement for 3 months; fraudulent claim, larceny, and conspiracy (BAH larceny)

U.S. v. E-2 – confinement for 4 months and BCD; desertion terminated by apprehension

U.S. v. E-2 – red to E-1, hard labor w/out confinement for 2 months and restriction to Fort Hood for 2 months, and to be reprimanded; 2-year AWOL; NG of desertion

U.S. v. E-4 – red to E-1, confinement for 120 days; carnal knowledge of child between 12 and 16
U.S. v. CW2 – to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 14 years, and to be dismissed from the service; indecent acts with a step-child, possession of child pornography, surreptitiously video-recording step-child and her friend in the nude; dismissed carnal knowledge and rape of biological child

U.S. v. E-1 – to be confined for 5 months and BCD; assault of superior commissioned officer with a knife; divers FTRs; weapons violation

U.S. v. E-5 – red to E-1, to forfeit $933 pay per month for 5 months, to be confined for 5 months, and BCD; AWOL x 2

U.S. v. E-5 – red to E-3, to forfeit $500 pay per month for 1 month, to be confined for 45 days; AWOL x 1; wrongful use of marijuana x 1

U.S. v. E-3 – red to E-1, total forfeiture of all pay and allowance, to be confined for 36 months, and DD; FTR x 2, false statement, impersonating an officer, wrongful wear of tabs, desertion x 1, kidnapping hoax**

U.S. v. E-1 – to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for three years, and BCD; forcible sodomy of a male

U.S. v. E-1 – to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for five years, and DD; kidnapping of a two-day old baby from a hospital**

U.S. v. E-4 – to be confined for six months and DD; aggravated sexual assault of a child and sodomy of a child

U.S. v. E-5 – red to E-1, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be confined for 36 months, BCD; indecent acts with a child x 4

U.S. v. E-5 – red to E-1 confinement for 6 months and BCD; aggravated sexual assault of a child, adultery, and false official statement

U.S. v. E-4 – red to E-1, total forfeitures, confinement for 20 years, and BCD; premeditated murder charge but found guilty of unpremeditated murder

U.S. v. E-6 – red to E-4, to be confined for 179 days, to perform hard labor w/out confinement for three months, and to be restricted to Fort Hood for two months; pursuant to his pleas, he was convicted of domestic assault and breaking restriction and contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of violation of no contact order, stalking, and obstructing justice; he was acquitted of wrongful communication of a threat and indecent assault

U.S. v. E-3 – red to E-1, confinement for 10 months and BCD; AWOL x 4, FTR x 2, larceny, wrongful use of cocaine, wrongful use of marijuana, willful disobedience of superior NCO
U.S. v. E-4 – 2-year AWOL; red to E-1, forfeit $933.00 pay per month for five months, five months confinement and 60 days hard labor

U.S. v. E-3 – full acquittal on domestic aggravated assault (stabbing) and assault charges, violation of no-contact order

U.S. v. E-5 – red to E-1, confinement for 9 months and BCD; AWOL x 2, divers FTR, wrongful use of drugs x 7

U.S. v. E-3 – red to E-1, confinement for 11 months, BCD; AWOL x 2; unlawful entry, wrongful use of marijuana

U.S. v. E-7 – red to E-6, hard labor without confinement for 60 days and reprimand; charged with dereliction of duty x 2, cruelty and maltreatment x 3, false official statement x 2, assault consummated by a battery x 3, obstructing justice x 1; client acquitted of 8/11 specifications

U.S. v. E-3 – red to E-1 and confinement for 4 months; acquitted of child abuse x 2, dismissed charge of domestic assault consummated by a battery, guilty of adultery only

U.S. v. E-4 – original GCM charges were assault consummated by a battery upon a child (infant), assault consummated by a battery, driving while intoxicated, intentionally fleeing a peace officer, reckless endangerment, endangering a child; government withdrew and referred only two specifications to a summary court-martial

U.S. v. E-4 – original charges of rape and forcible sodomy were amended to assault consummated by a battery and were referred to a summary court-martial after my representation at the Article 32(b) investigation

U.S v. E-7 – charges dismissed week prior to trial after conducting deposition in Iraq and providing exculpatory evidence to the government; larceny of credit card and larceny of Turkish carpets

2005 – 2007 

U.S. v. E-5 – conviction on indecent acts with a child; red to E-1, 4 months confinement and BCD

U.S. v. E-4 – conviction on indecent acts with a child; red to E-1, BCD
U.S. v. O-6 – conviction on 26 specs sex harassment/ sex assault of nine victims; confinement for 36 months and dismissal from service **

U.S. v. E-5 – conviction on child sex offender; red to E-1, 6 months, and BCD

U.S. v. E-2 – conviction on sex assault/ attempted murder; 20 years confinement and DD

U.S. v. E-2 – conviction on sodomy with a child, indecent acts; 30 days confinement

U.S. v. E-4 – conviction on sodomy with a child, indecent acts; 30 days confinement

* Only non-homicide LWOP sentences in the history of the Army JAGC

**Media coverage

Past results are no guarantee for future results. Every case is different

To View Previous Results Click On The Year.

2022    2021    2020     2019     2018     2017     2016     2015-2012

Prosecution Experience in Sexual Assault Cases:

In order to understand how to dismantle a case, it is vital to know how to build a case. Ms. Stewart prosecuted Army sexual assault cases for more than four years. Her record for prosecution is unparalleled and her “records” for non-homicide life without parole sentences stands today.

 

Our Practice Areas

Being a former service member herself and working exclusively on military cases, Ms. Stewart has amassed experience to help in the following areas of the UCMJ:

What Our Clients Say

When faced with the decision of hiring a UCMJ specialist, Ms. Stewart’s former clients explain all that is necessary about her commitment to their case and her expertise in handling the toughest legal battles. Learn more about her unique abilities in the words of her clients, peers, and military judges.