Charged With A Crime? Being Investigated? We Are Court-Martial Lawyers Who Can Help.

“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 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.

February 12, 2021, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Kaiserslautern, Germany. Military Police Sergeant is charged with 9 specifications under Article 120 for rape and sexual assault, 1 charge under Article 128 for strangulation with a force likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, and 1 specification for AWOL. Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin just prior to the preferral of charges. Throughout the court-martial, Gapasin aggressively represents the client, filing motions for dismissal due to Unlawful Command Influence (UCI), and alleging the defective referral of the Article 128 strangulation charge. The Military Judge did rule in favor of Gapasin pertaining to the defective Article 32 Preliminary Hearing so the judge ordered a second hearing. The second Article 32 preliminary hearing also resulted in a finding of No Probable Cause as to the AWOL charge. Gapasin had successfully litigated an MRE 412 motion to allow in key emails and text messages involving sexual behavior. At trial, Gapasin thoroughly cross-examines the alleged victim using a number of emails and text messages to impeach the alleged victim's testimony. Gapasin's theory was that due to his client divorcing the alleged victim, she quickly regrets compromsing throughout the marriage and once the client divorces her, she seeks vindication. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications. NO Federal Conviction, NO confinement, NO sex offender registration.

January 9, 2021, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Sergeant is charged for abusive sexual contact under Article 120 and attempted abusive sexual contact under Article 80. He is also charged with the maltreatment of a subordinate soldier, Article 128 for assault and battery and Article 92 for violating a lawful order. Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin. Gapasin files a key MRE 412 motion with the court in order to elicit evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual behavior. More specifically, Gapasin alleged that prior to the alleged assault, that she was married but still consented to getting together with the client. Following the motion, the Government then learned of the alleged victim's questionable conduct with the client prior to the alleged assault. Just 2 weeks before trial, the Government withdraws the charges. RESULT: WITHDRAWN AND DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Sex Offender Registration.

October 21, 2020, U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Knox, Kentucky. Supply Staff Sergeant with the New York City Recruiter Battalion is accused of larceny under Article 121 and under Article 107 for false official statement for purportedly lying to CID. Staff Sergeant asserts his innocence and retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. Gapasin had been retained on a previous BAH fraud case from the same battalion for a different client. The Government accuses Gapasin's client of stealing approximately $100,000 over a period of two years by collecting BAH that he should not have been collecting because he lived in Coast Guard Housing. Mr. Gapasin proceeds to trial. He cross-examines the Government's expert in Defense Finance and Accounting as well as his client's estranged, hostile spouse. The spouse provides the Government with a number of legal documents. She tries to help the Government prove that her husband had the mental state of mind to steal from the Government and had knowledge of the wrongful, excess BAH payments he received. Gapasin cross-examines additional witnesses that the Government puts on the stand. Ultimately, however, Mr. Gapasin argues before an Enlisted Panel why the Government failed to satisfy its burden of proof to show his client intended to steal. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications. NO Federal Conviction.

August 26, 2020, U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Knox, Tennessee. Staff Sergeant who is a DA-selected recruiter with the New York City Recruiter Battalion is accused of larceny under Article 121 and of giving a false official statement to a CID agent under Article 107. The Government prefers charges against him for allegedly committing BAH fraud against the United States by knowingly collecting twice as much as his typical base pay and not contacting the Army to inform them that he was incorrectly getting paid double for over 25 months. In an interrogation video, the Staff Sergeant claimed he did not know that he was getting paid twice of what he should have made. He also claimed that he properly turned in all of his paperwork for Coast Guard Housing and if there was a problem with his pay, then his pay should have been stopped by the Army or by the Coast Guard. The Government prefers charges and the Staff Sergeant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him. At trial, Gapasin exposes weaknesses in the Government's case and its failure to satisfy their high burden of proof. Gapasin attacked the Government's case because it only used statements made by his client at the video interrogation, and because it only focused on his LES's and the increase in entitlements that they claim Gapasin's client should have noticed after 16 years of military service. Gapasin argued before an Enlisted Panel that merely “assuming” what his client thought or believed was not the hard, solid facts needed under the law to satisfy the high burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of ALL Charges and Specifications. Gapasin's 16-year NCO continues with his career and has the opportunity for retirement.

July 24, 2020, Board of Inquiry, Lieutenant O-3, United States Navy, Commander Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan. Lieutenant becomes the subject of a sexual assault investigation that takes place onboard a ship. An allegation is made by a junior enlisted sailor against this officer, claiming that he forced himself on her in his stateroom which was located on the O-6 level of the ship. Because the alleged victim tells the Government that all she wants is for the officer to get separated, the Government decides not to prefer charges to a General Court-Martial. The Government does, however, NJP this officer and initiates a Board of Inquiry to separate him from the Navy after over 20 years of service as both an enlisted member and an officer. The Lieutenant retains Mr. Gapasin to represent him and to save his career. Gapasin focused on the seemingly absurd facts of the allegations, i.e., how she ended up on the O-6 deck without being seen, how she wasn't heard by a witness who lived in an adjacent stateroom, and how she immediately received an expedited transfer from Sasebo to San Diego. Gapasin also called the ship's commander to testify about negative observations he made of the accusing sailor, to include incidents of malingering, lying to her mother about not receiving proper care on the ship, and expressing feelings of illness but still taking liberty when the ship arrived at the Philippines. RESULT: 3-0 Vote by the Board that the allegations were UNSUBSTANTIATED. Client with 23 years in the Navy is RETAINED and will receive FULL RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

June 20, 2020, U.S. v. E-5, United States Marine Corps, Marine Corps Logistics Base, Albany, Georgia. Government prefers four charges against Sergeant of filing false and fraudulent claims (Arts. 132 and 124), false official statement (Art 107) and larceny (Art 121). A combined number of 32 total specifications are preferred against him. Sergeant faces considerable confinement and the possibility of a punitive discharge after being charged with allegedly submitting false lodging receipts for seeking reimbursement for utilities and other living expenses that he purportedly was not entitled to. Sergeant maintains his innocence and retains Mr. Gapasin. Gapasin immediately files a Motion to Dismiss due to Unlawful Command Influence (UCI) and enters into evidence a clandestine recording of the First Sergeant taken by another Marine in his client's unit. In the recording, the First Sergeant admits to the lack of guidance by the leadership, and he attempts to strong arm a number of Marines to take NJP to avoid a “court-martial and a dishonorable discharge”. Although the motion was denied, Gapasin reveals a number of flaws in the Government's case through witness testimony and evidence admitted during litigation of the motion. Gapasin's client continues to maintain his innocence although other Marines in similar circumstances accept NJP. By accepting NJP, they later deal with DFAS's recoupment of more than 30,000.00 dollars for each Marine due to their alleged fraud. Gapasin proceeds to trial and focuses on the “sloppy, rushed administration of travel vouchers” as well as the lack of proper guidance by the command and its “one receipt policy” that resulted in countless mistakes to the financial detriment of the Marines. Gapasin cross-examines the Government's DFAS expert as well as the First Sergeant who admits there are a number of “gray areas” in the travel voucher process. RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL of ALL 32 Specifications. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement, NO Discharge.

See More Case Results From 2008 To Present (click here)

2 Scott Air Force Base MPs Face Courts-Martial For Trafficking Drugs On Base And In Soulard

Mr. Gapasin is interviewed as Subject-Matter Expert for High-Profile case out of Scott AFB

Why Hire GAPASIN LAW GROUP?

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

(**Read other testimonials by clicking here or going to the “Resources” tab above, and then clicking on “Client Testimonials”).

Contact Us Today! AVAILABLE 24/7 — CLICK HERE!

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.