Charged With A Crime? Being Investigated? We Are Court-Martial Lawyers Who Can Help.
WITH OVER 21 YEARS of Courtroom Experience, Mr. Gapasin Is A Court-Martial Lawyer With The Track Record To Win Your Trial. CLICK HERE TO SEE TRIAL RESULTS FROM 2008 TO TODAY!! Compare our results to any other firm, and you'll see the difference!
YOUR LOCATION DOESN'T MATTER. WE REPRESENT CLIENTS WHEREVER THEY ARE STATIONED.
All initial consultations with Mr. Gapasin fall under the attorney-client privilege and are COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL.
Ernesto Gapasin, Atty. at Law
- TRIAL LAWYER FOR OVER 21 YEARS
- Former JAG Defense Counsel and Senior Defense Counsel,
- Former Part-Time Military Magistrate,
- Former JAG Prosecutor,
- Former Legal Advisor for Summary Courts-Martial Officers,
- Former Article 32 Legal Advisor,
- Former Legal Advisor to Investigating Officers,
- Iraq Combat Vet who also served overseas in Okinawa, Japan and Korea,
- Top 100 National Trial Lawyer, the author of multiple articles in law journals,
- Admitted to the United States Supreme Court AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
Will Worsham, Atty. at Law, Of Counsel
- TRIAL LAWYER FOR OVER 24 YEARS
- Practice in Both Federal and State Criminal Defense,
- Sitting Court Judge for Tri-City area,
- Former Assistant County Prosecutor,
- Weekly Appearance on popular show, “Speaking Legal”, held on regionally broadcast show,
- Awarded Top 40 Under 40 by Business Journal in 2009, AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
“If You Are Serious About Hiring A Military Court-Martial Lawyer, Call Now Or Email Us For A No-Cost Confidential Telephone Consultation.”
Fox2 News covers high-profile military trial and interviews lead court-martial lawyer, Mr. Gapasin.
Consider Mr. Gapasin's Past Results:
(Note: Your LOCATION Does Not Matter. GAPASIN LAW GROUP Represents Clients WHEREVER The Military Is Stationed. In ALL 50 States and Worldwide.)
June 21, 2022, U.S. vs. E-5, United States Air Force, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Staff Sergeant in the Air Force receives a Notice for Administrative Separation on the basis of "Personality Disorder or Mental Disorder Not Constituting a Physical Disability". The Staff Sergeant's leadership claims he had mental disorders resulting in disciplinary issues. Staff Sergeant's commander orders him to report for a psychological evaluation with Air Force psychologists. After conducting an evaluation, the psychologists diagnose the Staff Sergeant with "Unspecified Personality Disorder with paranoid and histrionic features and Delusional Disorder, Persecutory type". The Staff Sergeant denies any mental disorders contends his leadership is faking the results in order to kick him out solely because of differences in opinions regarding politics and culture. Staff Sergeant knows that future employment in the Air Force or in the civilian world would be seriously hindered due to this fake diagnosis. Staff Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him at his board. Gapasin immediately attacks the diagnosis. Gapasin's client gets evaluated by two civilian psychologists and a civilian social worker to engage in similar psychological evaluations in order to determine whether or not the Air Force psychologists made the proper diagnosis. The client's civilian psychologists came to the scientific determination that although certain traits did exist, that Gapasin's client was NOT diagnosed with "Unspecified Personality Disorder nor Delusional Disorder "under the DSM-5. At the board, Gapasin calls both psychologists to testify as witnesses. Gapasin also cross-examines the Lieutenant Colonel and the Major who testified against Gapasin's client. The Major even testifies that on one occasion he believed the client was going to kill him with a firearm when he heard a door swinging open behind him. However, Gapasin further questions the Major and elicits how none of the leadership ever followed any of the protocol with regards to safety concerns or active shooter concerns despite testimony about how concerned they were for their own safety. Gapasin also cross-examines the Air Force psychologists who render the diagnosis. Gapasin illustrates the suggestive bias that the Air Force psychologist exhibits based on communications with the client's chain of command. RESULT: This 3-Day Separation Board composed of All Officers RETAINS Gapasin's client in the US Air Force. The Board also finds any mental or personality disorder to be COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED.
April 22, 2022, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Riley, Kansas. The Government initiates an Administrative Separation Board against the Sergeant for allegations of distributing LSD. The basis for the Separation Board also includes a past DUI along with other alcohol-related incidents which had been the subject of a previous board. In that previous board, the recommendation was for separation, but the separation was suspended for a period of 12 months. Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin, who recognizes that the distribution charge which allegedly occurs during the period of suspension had to be disproven in order for his client to be retained. Under the applicable regulation, if no misconduct occurs during the period of suspension, then Gapasin's client could not be separated for the DUI. The allegation of distribution is made with 3 months left in the client's period of suspension. Gapasin presents significant evidence disproving these false allegations that his client sold drugs. Gapasin even reaches out directly to the person whom CID claims the client sold LSD to. Gapasin intentionally elicits key text messages from this alleged buyer who admits that Gapasin's client never sells him LSD. Gapasin texts: "You didn't tell CID that [Gapasin's client] sold you drugs correct?" Alleged buyer: "I agreed with [third party's] story after being coerced then in my memo to the COL I told them I didn't do it". Gapasin: "Understood, but [Gapasin's client] never sold you drugs, right?" Alleged buyer: "No". Gapasin: "No he did not sell you drugs? Just trying to clarify, I'm requesting your file currently." Alleged buyer: "No he did not." Gapasin moves to admit these texts to the Board along with other exhibits disproving the allegations. RESULT: RETAINED, with the allegation of Distribution of LSD found UNSUBSTANTIATED.
March 23, 2022, U.S. v. CW3, United States Army, Fort Meade, Maryland. The Government initiates a Board of Inquiry to separate a Chief Warrant Officer with over 18 years of service. The basis of the Board stems from an evening in 2020 that results in a DUI and an allegation of domestic battery in the parking lot of a bar restaurant. Chief Warrant Officer retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. At the Board, Mr. Gapasin argues how his client never receives a referred OER, nor any UCMJ action. Gapasin also argues how his client's flag is lifted 7 months after the incident allowing him to promote to CW3 even after the event. Gapasin further harps on his client's 18 years of dedicated and honorable service, including the submission of 37 character letters and an Estimated Retirement Benefits Memorandum reflecting total retirement in the amount of 1.6 million dollars should he retire in 2024 and live to the age of 80. RESULT: Officer Board RETAINS Chief Warrant Officer, allowing him to reach 20 years and obtain his full RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
March 16, 2022, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Rucker, Alabama. Sergeant is a 68W, Medic, out of the 2-506th Infantry Regiment, Fort Campbell, KY, the same regiment which the acclaimed mini-series, Band of Brothers, is based on. The Government prefers multiple charges and specifications against the Sergeant, to include 6 specifications under Article 120, sexual assault, and 8 specifications under Article 93 for maltreatment. The Government alleges the Sergeant committed such crimes by ordering 6 of her junior enlisted Soldiers to perform core temperature checks on each other during a medic platoon field exercise. These Soldiers claim they were in fear of saying no because of her tough reputation. The Sergeant retained Mr. Gapasin to represent her. At trial, the Government argues how the training is unnecessary and rarely conducted on a live human being. If it ever is conducted on a live human being, then there at least must be full consent. The Government also calls a witness who is an instructor and writer of guidance and policies for 68W medics. She testified how TRADOC simply does not train such procedures because it is "inappropriate." Gapasin, however, focuses on how critical obtaining core temperature was in the treatment of heat casualties. Core temperature is a vital sign, and if the medic fails to obtain an accurate reading of the patient's temperature, serious injury and even death can occur. Gapasin elicits testimony from 2 defense witness how 2 mass casualty events occurred on Fort Campbell which subsequently led to the manner in which the client was trained. Gapasin also elicits how a Battalion XO was admitted to the ICU due to medics incorrectly obtaining his core temperature. Gapasin argues before this Officer and Enlisted Panel how his client was training her Soldiers just as her prior leadership had trained her to obtain core temps, i.e., with live human beings. Gapasin further argues how his client was conducting essential training on a "common medic task." Contrary to the Government, Gapasin argues how the evidence should not be viewed "from the top", but instead at the unit level, and how she was an NCO training her Soldiers on an essential skill in the same way she was trained. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL 14 Charges and Specifications. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Sex Offender Registration.
January 6, 2022, U.S. v. O-4, United States Army, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Army Major with over 17 years of service attending the Army War College is accused by his command of committing multiple instances of false official statement, Article 107, UCMJ. He is also accused of violating a DOD stop-movement order by traveling to Fort Hood which is outside a travel radius imposed due to COVID, Article 92, UCMJ. Despite being so close to retirement eligibility, the Major receives an administrative reprimand and his unit initiates dismissal of this officer. The Major retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him at his Board of Inquiry. Gapasin argues how his client's hostile ex-wife consistently made false allegations against him to his command multiple times a week. Gapasin elicits testimony how his ex-wife's constant complaints and allegations that he was withholding support, and how she was the victim of domestic violence had become a nuisance to the unit. Gapasin argues how his client became a target of his command because of his ex-wife's repeated threats to his leadership that they were not doing anything about her complaints. Gapasin also focuses on the minor criminality of the allegations, and how separation so close to retirement would not be justified in light of his client's 17 years of dedicated and honorable service. RESULT: Board RETAINS Gapasin's client allowing him the opportunity to retire and receive FULL BENEFITS.
June 25, 2021, U.S. v. E-5, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Base -- Hawaii, Kanoehe Bay, Hawaii. Sergeant is accused of sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, and of false official statement under Article 107, UCMJ by allegedly lying by claiming he did not have sex with the alleged victim. Sergeant's DNA is found from swabs of the alleged victim during a sexual assault forensic exam ("SAFE"). Admissions that the alleged victim vomited from her level of intoxication and therefore could not consent were also included with evidence obtained from the investigation. Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin at the preferral of charges to represent him. Gapasin filed multiple motions for this Article 120, sex assault case. Gapasin approached trial with the theory that the Government would fail to satisfy its high burden of proof because of the real possibility that the alleged victim conducted herself in a blackout state of mind and therefore could have consented but had no memory of doing so. Gapasin cross-examined three other witnesses at the house where the incident took place and elicited testimony that the alleged victim was walking, talking and acting in a coherent manner. Gapasin also elicited testimony that clearly resembled that of the alleged victim engaging in serious flirting with another witness at the house. Mr. Gapasin delivered the fateful blow by calling the Defense's expert psychiatrist, a Navy Captain, who testified that his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty was that the alleged victim was blacked out, and not completely unconscious as she claimed. The Government could provide no rebuttal to the testimony. RESULT: NOT GUILTY to ALL Charges, NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Sex Offender Registration.
May 2, 2021, E-5, Administrative Separation Board, United States Army Reserves, Chicago, Illinois. Sergeant (E-5) who is new to this reservist unit is accused of sexual assault on two separate dates by a female Specialist. According to the allegations, the Sergeant committed abusive sexual contact during a car ride to a casino in the St. Louis area. The second accusation was that the Sergeant engaged in “hip pocket training” and touched her multiple times on her buttocks and groin in tying a “Swiss Seat” used in rappelling during some downtime in the headquarters. Her two enlisted friends apparently corroborated both alleged assaults in sworn statements to CID. Accuser appears on CBS News with Norah O'Donnell and makes accusations on national television that she was assaulted during a training exercise. Several news articles were written about this command and how her allegations were met with reprisal, thereby resulting in the reprimand of multiple Officers and Senior NCOs, along with the removal of a Reserve Commanding General. Sergeant is caught in the middle of this high-profile turmoil and retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. At the reservist separation board, Gapasin aggressively cross-examines the accuser, and her two friends, revealing multiple inconsistencies between their stories and failed attempts at corroboration. The accuser's male friend refused to continue answering questions during the board, requesting a lawyer following the reading of his Article 31 rights as he sat on the stand. Both the accuser and her friends clearly attempted to falsely corroborate their stories, and Gapasin revealed multiple inconsistencies and contradictions, to include a diagram where the witnesses failed to be consistent where individuals were supposedly standing when the “Swiss Seat” incident allegedly occurred. RESULT: Allegations of sexual assault and sexual harassment are found UNSUBSTANTIATED by a Board composed of Officers. Client is RETAINED.
April 23, 2021, U.S. v E-3, United States Air Force, Grand Forks AFB, Grand Forks, North Dakota. Airman First Class is accused by two female Airmen of rape and sexual assault on base. Dorm cameras show the first alleged victim walking out of A1C's dorm room in distress, then running to her room down the hall. The alleged rape victim claimed the A1C was high on LSD and “Molly” at the time of the rape. The second Airman claims she was sexually assaulted in her room in the middle of the night when the A1C was heavily intoxicated and walked in to apologize for events in an earlier softball game. The Government prefers charges for rape and sex assault against the A1C, who subsequently retains Mr. Gapasin. Mr. Gapasin aggressively cross-examines both alleged victims at an Article 39(a) to litigate an MRE 412 motion, i.e., to elicit prior sexual behavior of the alleged victims, which resulted in extensive contradictory testimony which could be used at trial. Following the Article 39(a), and after Mr. Gapasin conducted considerable discovery, the accuser of the sexual assault declined to participate further. Mr. Gapasin and his client proceeded to trial before an Enlisted Panel for the rape charge following several docketing delays due to COVID-19. At trial, Gapasin honed in on the accuser's multiple versions of events, and attacked the actual meaning of “pre-text messages” sent between the alleged victim and the client who was sitting with OSI agents at the time. Gapasin used the pre-text messages to support an argument for reasonable mistake of fact as to consent. At closing argument, Mr. Gapasin focused on the accuser's multiple versions of events, her fabricated timeline and how the sexual intercourse had to be consensual due to the clothing worn and the activity in the dorm room. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of Rape. NO Discharge, NO Sex Offender Registration.
2 Scott Air Force Base MPs Face Courts-Martial For Trafficking Drugs On Base And In Soulard
Focused On Military Court-Martial Defense And Separation Boards.
GAPASIN LAW GROUP is an aggressive, top-quality Law Firm with cases that have been reported on by hundreds of media outlets across the country and around the world, to include: CNN, Fox News, Newsweek, The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Time, USA Today, 60 Minutes, Stars and Stripes, Air Force Times, Army Times, Navy Times, Associated Press, The New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal and Las Vegas Sun, among many others.
(Note: Your Location Does Not Matter. We Represent Clients Wherever The Military Is Stationed.)
The Best Defense Is An Early Defense. Having The Right Court-Martial Lawyer On Your Side From Day 1 Is The Key To A Successful Defense.
Are You Facing A Similar Legal Situation?
- Military law enforcement wants your permission to search your home, computer, and personal things?
- You are the next target of the military's overly aggressive sexual assault policy?
- You are being investigated and no one has told you why and even your command refuses to give you any details?
- Your commander orders you to write out a “sworn” statement about what happened even though you want legal advice?
- You go to an off-post restaurant and see the prosecutors in your case having lunch with your detailed JAG lawyer?
- An officer was appointed to investigate your legal situation and wants you to come in and write out a statement?
- Your detailed JAG lawyer keeps telling you to sign off on the discharge for an Other Than Honorable Discharge even though you want to stay in the military?
- Military law enforcement told you that agreeing to do a polygraph was the best way of closing the investigation against you?
- Your chain of command, the prosecutor and your detailed JAG lawyer tell you that taking nonjudicial punishment is your best choice even though you are innocent and want to fight the allegations?
- You are being told that if you agree to nonjudicial punishment rather than a court-martial, your unit promises not to initiate separation proceedings afterwards — but they don't want to put it in writing?
- Did you sign a sworn statement against your will or without knowing your rights?
- Your detailed JAG lawyer is trying to convince you that you will be convicted if you don't sign the guilty plea even though you already told him that you are in fact innocent?
If so, call GAPASIN LAW GROUP so you know your rights and what to do when you are facing these life and career-threatening situations. Fill out the form to the left, click “Submit”, and we will call you shortly for your no-cost telephone consultation.
Remember, a quick plea deal may not be in your best interests, and may wreck your life down the road. Ask yourself: 5 years from now, when you look back on this decision to take the deal and not to fight the charges, is that a decision you're going to regret? The answer is almost always yes — especially when your free military lawyer forces you to take a deal you don't want. Call us. We will discuss all of your options with you, not just a guilty plea.
If you are facing an investigation or if you are pending charges for any of these offenses, whether it is for nonjudicial punishment (e.g., Article 15, Mast, Office Hours or a Summary Court-Martial), or for Special or General Courts-Martial, call GAPASIN LAW GROUP as soon as possible. Be warned, any mistakes you or your free, detailed military lawyer make early in the process will haunt you for the rest of the case. It is critical that you have experienced counsel right away.
What A Recent Client Had To Say . . .
“I was facing serious charges of UCMJ Article 120 for sexual assault and rape. It was an extremely long process that lasted years. I retained Ernesto and he immediately began working my defense and was very upfront about the conviction I could be facing. Ernesto was with me every step of the way and was available 24/7 whenever I needed any help or had any questions. Ernesto's professionalism, analytical skills, cross examination, and overall performance was simply outstanding. I would not trust any other attorney with my case other than Ernesto. During the court martial, Ernesto stood out well above anyone else and proved to be an extremely valuable member of the defense team from his preparation to his execution; he left nothing on the table and gave it all he had. In the end the court found me NOT GUILTY and acquitted of all charges. Ernesto's overall performance was the best anyone could ask for. I would highly recommend Ernesto to anyone who is facing serious charges if you are looking for a serious defense attorney who will do anything he can to protect you.” — 4 Nov 2017, posted on AVVO
You, your family, and your career are our top priorities. GAPASIN LAW GROUP will aggressively defend you to protect your rights, to win your case, and to give you your day in court. If you are serious about hiring a military defense attorney to defend you, call or email us now and we can discuss your matter privately and in confidence. We focus on winning tough cases.