Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog1. Charges and Sentence
Charge and Specification
-
Appellant, Private First Class Avery L. Rosario, U.S. Marine Corps, pleaded guilty to:
United States v. Rosario, NMCCA No. 202400297 (Dec. 19, 2025)
Articles Posted in Uncategorized
United States v. Howard, NMCCA No. 202400300 (Dec. 18, 2025)
1. Charges and Sentence
Charges (Plea):
-
One specification of violating a lawful general order (fraternization) in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
Undocumented military spouse
If you are on active duty and married to an undocumented “alien,” you have two concerns (1) how to get your spouse “legal,” and (2) avoiding disciplinary action.
Your Legal Jeopardy
Service members often ask whether marrying or living with an undocumented spouse exposes them to court-martial. The short answer is yes, in limited and fact-specific circumstances—but the risk most often arises from paperwork and benefits errors, not from marriage itself.
United States v. Guzman
1. Charges and Sentence
Charges/Specifications:
The appellant, Chief Hospital Corpsman (E-7) Marvin B. Guzman, U.S. Navy, was tried by general court-martial at Naval Base San Diego, California, and convicted by members with enlisted representation of:
UCMJ indecent exposure and the preemption doctrine
United States v. Marschalek, No. ACM S32776 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 16, 2026).
1. Charges and Sentence
Special Court-Martial, RAF Lakenheath, United Kingdom.
United States v. Clark, NMCCA No. 202400217 (N-Marine Corps Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 30, 2025) unpublished opinion
1. Charges and Sentence
Accused: Hospital Corpsman Petty Officer First Class (E-6) Anthony M. Clark, U.S. Navy.
Charges (UCMJ):
J’recuse (I recuse)
Why Judicial Recusal Protects You in a court-martial
A Cave & Freeburg, Military Lawyers, Client Explainer
When you face investigation, adverse administrative action, or court-martial, one principle stands above all others: your case must be heard by a fair and impartial judge. The military justice system—like every American court—recognizes that justice collapses when a judge appears biased or influenced. Recusal, the process by which a judge steps aside, protects your right to a neutral decision-maker.
Congress Changed Factual Sufficiency Review — What That Means for Your Military Appeal
At Cave & Freeburg, our military defense lawyers bring decades of combined experience litigating appeals before every Service Court of Criminal Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF). We study every new statutory amendment and every new judicial interpretation because appellate law shifts quickly—and those shifts can shape your future. One of the most important recent changes concerns factual sufficiency review under Article 66, UCMJ. Congress radically narrowed this form of appellate protection for offenses occurring on or after 1 January 2021, and the service courts have spent the last three years defining how the new standard works in practice.
If you have a conviction involving post-2021 offenses, or if you face a pending court-martial today, you need to understand how this change affects your rights—and how skilled appellate counsel can still use Article 66 to your advantage.
What Factual Sufficiency Review Used to Look Like
Obeying Orders, Breaking the Law: The Limits of the “Superior Orders” Defense
Military commanders rely on obedience to accomplish missions, protect forces, and enforce discipline. Servicemembers understand that duty demands compliance with lawful orders. But the law does not allow blind obedience. When an order crosses the boundary into criminality, a servicemember must refuse it—even in combat. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces sharpened this principle in United States v. Smith, 68 M.J. 316 (C.A.A.F. 2010), which now stands as the most rigorous and up-to-date analysis of the superior-orders doctrine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Smith does more than restate old rules. It clarifies how the UCMJ defines illegal orders, explains when obedience becomes criminal, and integrates the lessons of Calley, Rockwood, and New into one modern framework. The case now guides trial litigation, appellate review, and operational training across the force.