Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
In re LB, Misc. Dkt. No. 2025-14
Have Briefcase (and
Internet), Will TravelFor a Free Consultation
What the Military Can Actually Silence You For— And What It Cannot
The First Amendment follows you into uniform, but it does not follow you the same way. Service members who do not understand where the line falls often cross it without knowing—and pay with their careers. This informational post is brought to you by Cave & Freeburg, LLP, at court-martial.com.
A soldier posts a video criticizing the president. A Marine tweets her opinion on military policy. A Navy captain—now a United States senator—reminds active-duty personnel they can refuse unlawful orders. Each of these acts raises the same fundamental question: where exactly does the First Amendment end inside the military?
The answer is more complicated than most service members realize, more consequential than most civilians understand, and more unsettled than any branch would prefer to admit. The stakes—careers, pensions, liberty—demand that every service member know the terrain before they speak.
Invoking right to counse-Cave & Freeburg, LLP
United States v. Rivera, NMCCA No. 202400304 (Nov. 13, 2025)
Court: Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals Panel: Senior Judge Gross (author), Chief Judge Daly, Judge de Groot Result: Affirmed
What Happened
Phone searches – Cave & Freeburg, LLP
United States v. Guinsler — Case Summary, prepared by Phil Cave of Cave & Freeburg, LLP
What the Court Decided in Guinsler
In January 2026, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Army soldier James Isaac Guinsler on four counts of coercion and enticement of a child and one count of possession of child pornography. The case began when Snapchat’s automated system flagged two images of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that Guinsler shared on April 29, 2024. The York-Poquoson Sheriff’s Office traced the Snapchat account to Guinsler through T-Mobile records, then obtained warrants for his Snapchat and iCloud accounts — both limited to a two-month window (April–May 2024). Those searches uncovered sexually explicit conversations with multiple females who identified themselves as minors.
When findings of guilty are ambiguous
On March 25, 2026, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals issued its decision in United States v. Williams-Clark (ARMY 20230185). The court set aside a sexual assault conviction — one that carried a two-year confinement term — not on the merits, but because the verdict itself was fatally ambiguous. The military judge convicted Private Williams-Clark of sexual assault without consent while simultaneously acquitting him of sexual assault when the victim was incapable of consenting. Both specifications covered the same day, the same location, and the same victim — but two separate sexual acts.
The court could not determine which act formed the basis of the conviction. That uncertainty, the court held, made meaningful appellate review impossible. The conviction had to go.
What Actually Happened at Trial
Can you win when the judge errs and the prosecution delays discovery-A lesson from United States v. Jacinto
United States v. Jacinto — Case Analysis
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces | Decided February 2, 2026
What Happened
When Must a Military Judge Instruct on an Affirmative Defense? Lessons from United States v. Castillo
Published by Cave & Freeburg LLP | Military Justice Defense Attorneys
Case Citation: United States v. Castillo, No. ACM 40705 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 11, 2026) | Unpublished
A recent Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals decision — United States v. Castillo — raises an important question every military defense lawyer must understand: when does a military judge have a duty to instruct on an affirmative defense, even during a guilty plea proceeding? The answer directly affects court-martial strategy, plea negotiations, and appellate rights for servicemembers facing charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
United States v. Selleneit, NMCCA No. 202400185 | Decided: 17 March 2026
Overview
The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA) decided United States v. Selleneit on 17 March 2026, affirming the findings and sentence of a general court-martial tried at Naval Station Rota, Spain. Fire Controlman Aegis Petty Officer Second Class (E-5) George B. Selleneit faced charges of sexual assault under Article 120, UCMJ, and unlawful entry under Article 129, UCMJ. A panel of officer and enlisted members acquitted him of sexual assault but convicted him of unlawful entry. The court sentenced Selleneit to reduction to E-3, restriction to USS Porter for two months, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances for two months (with the convening authority waiving forfeitures above two-thirds pay per month).
Factual Background
Acquitted Conduct Sentencing in Military Courts | Cave & Freeburg, LLP
When “Not Guilty” Still Costs You: Acquitted Conduct Sentencing in Military Court-Martial
Being found not guilty on a charge should mean something. But in both federal and military courts, a “not guilty” verdict on one count can still drive up the punishment on counts where the jury did convict you. This practice — called acquitted conduct sentencing — raises serious constitutional questions under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and the rules governing it just changed significantly. Here is what every service member facing court-martial needs to know.
What Is Acquitted Conduct Sentencing at Court-Martial?
Defending Government Appeals: United States v. ScottGeorge
Government appeals under Article 62 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) involve some of the most procedurally complex cases in the military justice system. When the Government challenges a military judge’s ruling during an ongoing court-martial, the case unexpectedly shifts from trial litigation to appellate practice. Defense counsel must quickly defend a favorable ruling before the service court of criminal appeals while protecting the accused’s rights and maintaining the integrity of the trial record. The Navy–Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in United States v. ScottGeorge demonstrates both the legal standards for these appeals and the importance of experienced appellate advocacy.
The Government’s Interlocutory Appeal
In ScottGeorge, the Government invoked Article 62(a)(1)(B), UCMJ, to challenge a military judge’s order suppressing statements obtained during an NCIS interrogation. Article 62 allows the Government to appeal certain rulings that exclude evidence constituting substantial proof of a material fact. Unlike typical appeals, however, Article 62 proceedings occur while the court-martial is still ongoing. Once the Government files the appeal, the trial is paused, and the appellate court reviews the ruling based on the existing record.