We Have The Courtroom Experience And The Track Record To Win Your Court-Martial. CONSIDER OUR RECENT CASE RESULTS (See Below and under “Notable Cases”).
Mickey Williams, Atty. at Law
- Former JAG Defense Counsel,
- Former Part-Time Military Magistrate,
- Former JAG Prosecutor,
- Former Article 32 Investigating Officer,
- Former Legal Advisor to Investigating Officers under UCMJ and for Financial Loss Investigations,
- Infantryman Who Served In Ranger Regiment,
- Iraq and Afghanistan Combat Vet,
- Over 100 Combat Missions, Operating With Navy SEALs, Green Berets, Air Force Pararescue (PJ) and Delta Force,
- Veteran Trial Lawyer AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
Ernesto Gapasin, Atty. at Law
Ernesto Gapasin, Atty. at Law- 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,
- Veteran Trial Lawyer For 19 Years, Admitted to the United States Supreme Court AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
Robert Capovilla, Atty. at Law
- Former JAG Defense Counsel and Prosecutor,
- Former Special Assistant United States Attorney (SAUSA),
- Former Part-Time Military Magistrate,
- Former Legal Advisor to Investigating Officers,
- Former Article 32 Hearing Officer,
- Former Ethics Advisor To Division Commanding General (CG),
- Air Assault Wings, Overseas Tour, Veteran Trial Lawyer, VA Accredited AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
Nathan Freeburg, Atty. at Law
- Former JAG Defense Counsel,
- Former Training Officer and Expert Litigator for “DCAP” (Defense Counsel Assistance Program),
- Former JAG Prosecutor and Chief of Military Justice,
- Former Court-Martial Trial Instructor for “CLE” Courses (Continuing Legal Education),
- Taught Trial Skills and Courtroom Tactics to Hundreds of JAGs and Civilian Lawyers across the United States, Germany and South Korea,
- Iraq Combat Vet,
- Veteran Trial Lawyer For 15 Years, VA Accredited, Admitted to U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
Charles B. Dixon, Atty. at Law
- Former JAG Defense Counsel and Prosecutor,
- Former Training Officer and Expert Litigator for “TCAP” (Trial Counsel Assistance Program),
- Former Special Victim Prosecutor, 1 of only 23 in JAG Corps, hand-selected to litigate Article 120 sex assault trials and high-profile trials,
- Taught Trial Skills and Evidence at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
- Taught Trial Skills and Courtroom Tactics to Hundreds of JAGs regarding Article 120 Sexual Assault Trials,
- Inducted into the Order of Barristers, i.e., top oral advocates, Veteran Trial Lawyer AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
“If You Are Serious About Hiring A Civilian Court-Martial Lawyer, Call Now Or Email Us For A Free Confidential Telephone Consultation.”
Fox2 News covers high-profile military trial and interviews lead defense counsel, Mr. Gapasin.
Consider These Results:
(Note: Your Location Does Not Matter. We Represent Clients Wherever The Military Is Stationed.)
October 15, 2018, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. A SGT, a 27D JAG Paralegal in the 75th Ranger Regiment, is accused of distributing cocaine to numerous other Rangers within the regiment, introducing cocaine onto a Federal installation, attempting to distribute cocaine, and unlawfully storing a personally owned weapon in his vehicle. Even after the SGT’s ETS date had passed, the Government keeps SGT in the Army past his ETS date and prefers charges against him. SGT retains GCW Law to represent him. Mr. Mickey Williams begins investigating the case and contacting various witnesses. It becomes clear that the Government’s case heavily relies on the credibility of one witness, another Ranger. This witness had previously been punished for using cocaine. At the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, the Government calls this witness to testify that he purchased cocaine from the client. Mr. Williams aggressively cross-examines this supposed “snitch”. During William’s aggressive and lengthy cross-examination, the “snitch” gives in, and finally admits to Williams in this open hearing that he originally told another Ranger that he got the cocaine from someone else at the party, not from the client. Williams pushes even farther, forcing the “snitch” to admit that he would absolutely lie to law enforcement before he would lie to another Ranger. Williams highlighted the “snitch’s” lack of credibility and inconsistencies during his closing argument at the end of the Article 32 hearing. Williams also hammers home how the Government failed to meet its burden of proof, and how the Government’s entire case relied on this “snitch,” an admitted liar. RESULT: Two days after the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing, the Government WITHDRAWS its Charges and DISMISSES THE CASE. NO Involuntary Separation, NO Federal Conviction. Client is allowed to head home after his ETS date with an Honorable Discharge and FULL MILITARY BENEFITS.
September 20, 2018, U.S. v. E-6, United States Navy, Norfolk Naval Station, Norfolk, Virginia. The Government accuses Navy Sailor, a CS1 (E-6) with 11 years of service, of creating a hostile work environment and making a false official statement under Article 107, UCMJ. Sailor is sent to non-judicial punishment. Client consults with Nathan Freeburg and subsequently turns down non-judicial punishment and demands trial by court-martial. Predictably, the client’s command orders a separation board rather than prefer charges to a court-martial. Freeburg closely works with with the client, preparing an extensive list of character witnesses and a rebuttal to the government charges. With the advice of Mr. Freeburg, client maintains his innocence throughout the board process. Freeburg aggressively represents client at the separation board. RESULT: Misconduct NOT SUBSTANTIATED. FULL RETENTION.
September 18, 2018, U.S. v. E-4, United States Marine Corps, Bangor, Washington. LCpl is accused of sexually assaulting a child under the age of 16. Law enforcement interrogates the LCpl for several hours, search his home, his truck, and confiscate several pieces of his clothing. The LCpl is then removed from his position and placed in a “disciplinary unit” where he is tasked with cleaning the head, landscaping and mopping floors. The LCpl retains GCW Law to represent him. Client maintains that he believed the alleged victim was at least 18 years old. Capovilla and firm investigator, Mr. David Faulkner work the investigation. Faulkner uncovers several profiles the alleged victim had posted on Tinder and other dating applications where the she advertised her age as a 19 year-old college student. As a direct result of GCW’s investigation, the Marine Corps is forced to consider other courses of action. RESULT: Charges DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Sex-Offender Registration. LCpl is reinstated within the unit.
September 12, 2018, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Camp Buehring, Kuwait. Sergeant is accused of committing several acts of sexual harassment and sexual assault upon fellow NCOs while deployed and serving overseas. According to the allegations, the Sergeant touched, grabbed and made sexual advances towards two females in his unit who were dating one another at the time of the alleged incident. Sergeant’s command offers him Article 15 punishment and the Sergeant’s JAG military defense counsel strongly encouraged the Sergeant to accept the Article 15 punishment because the JAG told him, “we would lose at a court-martial, no question about it.” Wanting a second opinion, the Sergeant speaks with GCW Law and retains the firm. Robert Capovilla thoroughly analyzes the evidence and Mr. David Faulkner works the case in his investigative capacity. Capovilla and Faulkner discover that the allegations are not nearly as strong as the command alleges them to be. Moreover, through the process of interviewing eye witnesses, Capovilla is able to uncover that the alleged victims actually told other members of the unit that they did not like the client and they want him removed from the unit before they accuse him of misconduct. On Mr. Capovilla’s recommendation, the client turns down Article 15 punishment and opts to for court-martial. RESULT: Charges DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Sex-Offender Registration. NO Confinement. Client is reinstated within the unit.
September 5, 2018, U.S. v. E-6, United States Marine Corps, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Staff Sergeant is accused of adultery, inappropriate relationship with a trainee, fraternization, and failure to obey a lawful order. The Government accused him of having sex with a trainee, drinking alcohol with lower enlisted Marines and communicating with other Marines involved in a Command Investigation. Staff Sergeant’s command initiates an administrative separation proceedings against him and he retains GCW Law to represent him. Mr. Mickey Williams immediately spots significant weaknesses in the Command Investigation. It is clear that the client’s command singles him out and ignores the involvement of other high-ranking Maines, including a Field Grade Officer who is never punished for allegedly engaging in the same misconduct. Williams also uncovers how the command deliberately leaves out vital pieces of evidence from the investigation that both contradict their theory and exonerates Williams’s client. During a subsequent administrative separation board, Williams presents evidence t the board that catches the Government completely by surprise. Additionally, Williams aggressively cross-examines the Investigating Officer and points out the investigator’s unsupported claims and poor investigative efforts. Under cross-examination, the Investigator further admits that he did not recommend that the client should be separated. RESULT: RETAINED, Allegations UNSUBSTANTIATED, NO loss of G.I. Bill, NO loss of medical retirement, and NO loss of VA benefits.
See More Case Results From 2008 To Present (click here)
Local news channel interviews Mickey Williams about active shooter case at Fort Campbell.
Exclusively Focused On Military Criminal Defense And Separation Boards.
Gapasin, Capovilla & Williams, LLP is an aggressive, top-quality law firm of Military Trial Lawyers that is DEDICATED to Military Criminal Defense and Separation Boards. Our cases 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 Military 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, Capovilla & Williams, LLP 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 free 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.
You, your family, and your career are our top priorities. Gapasin, Capovilla & Williams, LLP 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 law firm to defend you, call or email us now and we can discuss your matter privately and in confidence. We focus on winning tough cases.
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, Capovilla & Williams, LLP as soon as possible. Be warned, any mistakes you or your free, detailed JAG 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.
