Our Military Lawyers 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.
Wes McConnell, Atty. at Law
- Former Air Force JAG Senior Defense Counsel, and Area Defense Counsel (ADC),
- Former Senior Trial Counsel, detailed to High-Profile and Article 120 Sexual Assault Trials,
- Former Staff Judge Advocate (deployed),
- Lieutenant Colonel (Air Force Reserves) who also served in the Middle East,
- Former Legal Advisor to Investigating Officers,
- Former Article 32 Hearing Officer,
- Prior Enlisted in United States Navy,
- Veteran Trial Lawyer For 15 Years, defended Appeals with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and EEOC, AND
- Licensed To Practice In ALL Military Courts.
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.
“If You Are Serious About Hiring A Civilian-Military Defense Attorney, 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. Our Civilian Military Lawyers Represent Clients Wherever The Military Is Stationed. In ALL 50 States and Worldwide.)
April 17, 2019, U.S. v. E-5, United States Army, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. Sergeant (SGT) is accused of driving under the influence in Clarksville, Tennessee. The Command initiates a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and separation proceedings. SGT retains GCW and Mr. Mickey Williams begins to investigate the case. Williams learns that the client has fewer than five years of active duty service, which means that the Command does not have to send her to an administrative separation board and can even kick her out of the Army without a hearing. Williams develops a plan to combat her discharge. Williams creates a Respondent’s Packet detailing why the client should remain in the Army. Williams interviews and collects over fifteen character statements on the client’s behalf to include one the client’s former commanders. Williams also drafts a substantive brief detailing the night in question, the contributions the client has made to the Army as evidenced by numerous awards, and argues how the Command should retain the client in the Army. RESULT: FULLY RETAINED, NO punishment, NO loss of rank and NO loss of military benefits.
April 10, 2019, U.S. v. CDT, United States Military Academy (USMA), West Point, New York. Cadet (CDT) is accused of sexually assaulting another CDT in her dorm room. USMA launches an investigation and determines that there is probable cause to go to trial. CDT proclaims his innocence and even subjects himself to a polygraph examination. USMA prefers charges against CDT and he immediately retains GCW Law to defend him against the allegation. Mr. Mickey Williams begins reviewing the evidence and interviewing witnesses. Williams discovers that the accuser was in another relationship during the alleged assault. Additionally, Williams uncovers numerous incidents where the accuser flirted and even initiated sexual communications via Snapchat with the CDT. It becomes clear to Mr. Williams that the accuser is lying about the allegation in order to protect her relationship with her boyfriend. Williams presents this evidence to the prosecution who later dismisses the case only to later re-prefer additional charges with an additional accuser. Mr. Williams understands that the Government is attempting to bolster their incredibly weak case with a fresh allegation from a new accuser. Williams again investigates the new allegation and learns that the new accuser lied to law enforcement and deleted highly relevant text messages between her and the CDT. Text messages that show she invited the CDT to her room the night of the allegation. Additionally, Mr. Williams finds sexually provocative photographs that the new accuser texted to the CDT. Additionally, Williams finds witnesses who will testify that during the night in question, the new accuser was seducing the accused by rubbing his inner thigh, whispering in his ear, and even pressing against him. Mr. Williams files several motions detailing these incidents whichf which the Government was completely unaware of. RESULT: Case DISMISSED, NO CONVICTION, NO Sex Offender Registration, NO Confinement.
March 1, 2019, U.S. v. E-6, United States Navy, Norfolk, Virginia: The BU1 (E-6), who was an underwater construction diver, is accused by two (2) women of abusive sexual contact, aggravated sexual contact, and sexual harassment. BU1 retains GCW Law. The Government alleges that BU1 sexually assaulted these woman and refers charges to courts-martial. At trial, the Government calls six (6) witnesses and introduces a tape recording of the BU1 allegedly admitting he sexually assaulted the second alleged victim. Mr. Robert Capovilla cross-examines both complaining witnesses for over 60 minutes, impeaches both witnesses, and shows that both witnesses either willingly to lied under oath or greatly exaggerated the truth. Moreover, Mr. Capovilla is able to show through cross-examination that alleged victim #1 only reported the incident after her boyfriend, also a Navy diver, called BU1 a racial slur and was reported for misconduct. With alleged victim #2, Mr. Capovilla shows the panel that she lied under oath on at least five occasions. Capovilla also impeaches her with text messages and he offers evidence during the defense’s case-in-chief that her version of the facts were simply impossible. Against Government objection, Mr. Capovilla persuades the Military Judge during an Article 39(a) to admit text messages between BU1 and alleged victim #2 that completely debunks the Government’s case, wherein she was “terrified” to work with our client. After four (4) full days of litigation, the panel acquits GCW’s client of all charges and their specifications. RESULT: NOT GUILTY to ALL Charges and their Specifications. NO Confinement. NO reduction in rank. NO Federal Conviction. NO Sex-Offender Registration. GCW’s client is continuing his career as a Navy Diver.
February 19, 2019, U.S. v. E-7, United States Air Force, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois. MSgt (E-7) is accused of importing steroids, illegally possessing prescription diet pills, battering, threatening and sexually assaulting his spouse. Three years earlier, spouse suspects husband of having an affair and begins collecting evidence to gain leverage over him in divorce proceedings. Spouse places baby monitors in various rooms of the house and records all conversations accused has. Additionally, spouse secretly records husband and her arguing to include the alleged assault and threats. Spouse also secretly takes pictures of the MSgt apparently using steroids. During divorce proceedings, spouse threatens to disclose all evidence unless MSgt agrees to the divorce settlement. MSgt agrees. Three years later, MSgt is under investigation for “doctor shopping” for prescription diet pills. During the investigation, OSI interviews MSgt’s former spouse who turns over all evidence that she collected three years earlier; however, she makes an additional allegation of sexual assault. Spouse is unable to articulate how many times the sexual assaults occurred, but does detail at least one event. Once notified of the allegation of sexual assault, MSgt retains GCW Law. GCW immediately begins reviewing the evidence and interviewing witnesses. All witnesses state that MSgt is a great Airman with no known history of violence. None of the evidence reviewed indicate that there ever was a sexual assault. GCW attempts to interview the spouse who refuses to participate, although she cooperates with the Government and OSI over and over. At trial, GCW is able to demonstrate how implausible the spouse’s sexual assault allegation is. There were no recordings, pictures, or even complaints about any sexual misconduct prior to OSI interviewing the spouse. Additionally, GCW is able to keep out various other allegations of misconduct the client allegedly commits while married to spouse to include a DUI arrest that occurred a week before trial. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of Sexual Assault. NO Sex Offender Registration. Only minimal punishment for other charged offenses.
February 4, 2019, US v. Cadet, United States Air Force, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Cadet is placed under investigation for over a year for allegedly sexually assaulting a fellow female cadet at the Academy. The complaining witness alleges that the Cadet had sexually assaulted her on two different occasions: once in the fall of 2016 and once in the fall of 2017. Cadet retains GCW Law. The Convening Authority refers the case to a separation board because he felt that it would be an easy win for the prosecutor based on the lower burden of proof. Mr. Capovilla cross-examines the complaining witness for over 90-minutes and through the crucible of cross examination gets the complaining witness to admit that she lied to OSI, to the Government, and to her fellow cadets. During the examination, Mr. Capovilla forces the complaining witness to admit that she had completely forgotten about the first alleged sexual assault for nearly 24-months and only remembered being assaulted “after God refreshed her memory by giving her a nightmare” that just happened to coincide with an MRE 412 motion filed by Mr. Capovilla. She made this claim in response to Capovilla’s motion. Mr. Capovilla successfully cross-examines all of the complaining witnesses’ friends and is able to show that there was collusion among the witnesses to set up the accused Cadet. On close, Capovilla points out that the complaining witness changed her story on at least 15 different occasions and successfully argued that all of the forensic and scientific evidence supported the defense’s theory of the case. That theory was that this was a consensual sexual experience. Mr. Capovilla litigates this BOI for 4 days, cross-examines six (6) witnesses including a DNA expert. Capovilla files 3 motions and is able to successfully show that the Cadet is falsely accused. RESULT: RETAINED. NO UOTH. NO Jail time. Cadet is back in class with his old unit and is scheduled to graduate next year.
January 28, 2019, US v. E-7, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Sergeant First Class (E-7) client is falsely accused by his wife of domestic assault and sexual assault. Sergeant First Class retains GCW Law before charges are preferred and GCW Law assigns its investigation team to the case. GCW’s investigators interview several witnesses including the E-7’s children who were allegedly present during the alleged domestic violence and sexual assault. After a thorough investigation, GCW discovers that the complaining witness told her children that she was having an affair on the E-7 and that she, the complaining witness, knew that as a Soldier herself, she could get in big trouble for committing adultery. Through the investigation, GCW also determines that the children never once saw, heard, or ever believed that the E-7 sexually assaulted his wife at any point. The investigation uncovers how on at least one occasion, the complaining witness tells her oldest child that the E-7 had never hurt her or assaulted her and that she was just afraid of being punished and left alone. RESULT: CASE DISMISSED. Client KEEPS HIS RETIREMENT. Client’s retirement is salvaged and he will be able to retire with an Honorable Discharge.
January 11, 2019, U.S. v. E-3, United States Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton, San Diego, California. Lance Corporal is accused of malingering and failing to obey a lawful order when someone sees him playing football while off-duty. LnCpl had suffered a shoulder injury while in Marine Recon school that caused him to endure months of physical therapy without success. Eventually, LnCpl undergoes shoulder surgery that does not remedy his shoulder issues. LnCpl is granted a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) that recommends a medical retirement from the Marine Corps. Two weeks prior to LnCpl’s retirement date, the Command moves to give him Non-Judicial Punishment, also known as an Article 15, because they believe that he is faking his injury. His Command seeks to punish him and strip him of his medical retirement. LnCpl immediately retains GCW. GCW Law begins interviewing several witnesses, including the doctor who performed the surgery who corroborates LnCpl’s story. GCW also reviews the medical records and all evidence the Government plans to use to support the Article 15. Prior to the Article 15 hearing, the Command tries to intimidate LnCpl into taking the Article 15 and his supervisors mock and laugh at his chances of success at trial. Based on the strength of his evidence and weakness of the Government’s case, and based on GCW’s advice, LnCpl demands trial by court-martial and turns down the NJP. The Government then prefers and refers charges for a Court-Martial. GCW requests that the Government interview the client’s doctor who will testify that he is not faking his injury, thereby entirely destroying the Government’s case. RESULT: CHARGES WITHDRAWN and Case DISMISSED. NO Federal Conviction, NO Confinement. Client is ALLOWED TO MEDICALLY RETIRE with FULL BENEFITS.
January 10, 2019, U.S. v. E-6, United States Army, Fort Benning, Georgia. Staff Sergeant (E-6) is charged with six (6) specifications of domestic violence against his current spouse, two (2) specifications of child endangerment, and an Article 92 violation for allegedly violating a no-contact order. Staff Sergeant retains GCW Law. Immediately, Mr. Capovilla files an R.C.M. 706 motion with the judge to order a mental health evaluation of the client, a combat veteran. The 706 board determines that the client suffered from extreme PTSD and that he could not have formed the requisite intent to commit the alleged crimes. Despite these findings, the Government moves forward with several aspect of the case and seeks 18 months of jail time for the E-6, a Bad Conduct Discharge, and a reduction to E-1. At trial, the Government dismisses the Article 92 violation and the E-6 is found NOT GUILTY of domestic violence against his current spouse and NOT GUILTY of endangering his step-children. RESULT: NOT GUILTY of domestic violence. NOT GUILTY of child endangerment. Article 92 violation DISMISSED. NO DISCHARGE, NO reduction to E-1.
December 13, 2018, U.S. v. E-4, United States Army, Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Government accuses Specialist (SPC) of sexual assault. The SPC hires a civilian counsel from another law firm and that civilian counsel tells the SPC that he “has very little chance to win the case,” and that the best the SPC could hope for was to plead guilty. The Government denies the SPC’s offer to plead guilty and informs the SPC that they want at least 5 years confinement and want him to register as a sex offender. The SPC retains GCW Law. GCW immediately files a Motion for Expert Assistance and, upon thoroughly reviewing the evidence, discovers that there are missing text messages that may hold the key to the client’s innocence. GCW wins the Motion for Expert Assistance despite the Government’s objections and forces the Government to turn over all text messages sent by the alleged “victim” from the night in question. Upon receiving the text messages, GCW is able to argue before the panel that the alleged “victim” lied to CID, the police, and the prosecutors and that her time line of events did not make sense. GCW successfully impeaches the alleged victim’s friends whom the Government called to incriminate the client. Moreover, after an Article 39(a) motions hearing, GCW convinces the Military Judge to suppress any statements the alleged victim made to the Sex Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) whom the Government called to prove the client was guilty. After three days of trial and several hours of motions, the Enlisted Panel rendered its findings RESULT: FULL ACQUITTAL. NO Confinement, NO Discharge, NO Federal Conviction, NO Sex Offender Registration. The Specialist returned to his unit with plans of becoming a Special Operator.
See More Case Results From 2008 To Present (click here)
Local news channel interviews Mickey Williams about active shooter case at Fort Campbell.
Why Hire GCW Law Military Lawyers?
Exclusively Focused On Military Criminal Defense And Separation Boards.
Gapasin, Capovilla & Williams, LLP is an aggressive, top-quality law firm of Military Defense Attorneys that are 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.)
Mr. Capovilla celebrating a big win at the Air Force Academy
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.
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 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 . . .
“Mr. Capovilla was extremely professional and keen with his cross examination on the alleged-victim. He had discredited her reputation by exploiting her inconsistent statements in this case. Furthermore, the closing of the case of Mr. Capovilla was, with a lack of a better term, amazing.” — Client, 11 Mar 2019.
“Mickey, Rob and the other lawyers at GCW saved both my career and future. I contacted GCW shortly after I was notified that the Army intended to separate me. GCW informed me of the steps the Army would make and helped me get my defense packet together. Thankfully I had them on my case because my Army appointed lawyer from TDS tried to get me investigated by CID. Rob was able to get that TDS attorney kicked off my case and got me a TDS attorney from another post. Rob handled all contact with the military prosecution and let me know everything that the Army was doing behind the scene. The Army set a board date that Rob was not able to make because of another trial, so after a conference between Rob, Mickey and I, we decided not to give the Army more time to prepare, and Mickey took up the case. Mickey came down the day before the board to go over all the evidence, character statements, and my testimony multiple times with me. I went into the separation board with a plan of action, confident and prepared. Mickey destroyed the military prosecutor, and the board found me not guilty. I had 12 years of decorated service in special operations. GCW saved my career, retirement and VA benefits. I would not trust another law firm with my future on the line. If you find yourself in trouble with the military, contact GCW before you say or do anything.” — ZS, 2 Dec 2018.
(**Read other testimonials by clicking the “Resources” tab above, and then clicking on “Client Testimonials”).
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 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.
