Court Martial Defense | Military Lawyer for Court Martial | Court Martial Defense Attorneys

Law Offices of James Culp & Timothy Litka, LLP | Worldwide Representation | Call now for a FREE Consultation - Available 24/7 (888) 246-1515


	What is an Article 32 Preliminary Hearing? An Article 32 Preliminary Hearing is conducted by an impartial preliminary hearing officer (judge advocate) who is responsible for examining all charges preferred against an accused before the case is referred to a general court-martial. Before a charge can be referred to a General Court-Martial, the government must present all available evidence to an impartial Investigating Officer (IO). The purpose of an Article 32 Preliminary Hearing is to conduct a “Pretrial Preliminary Hearing” (pre Courts-Martial hearing) to inquire into the facts and substance of the accusation(s) set forth in the charges; to consider the form of the charges; and to determine what disposition should be made of the case in the interest of both justice and discipline. The Article 32 Preliminary Hearings Offer A Powerful Opportunity for the Accused An accused has the right to be present and participate in the Article 32 Investigation hearing. The Article 32 hearing provides the accused and his or her attorney(s) a powerful opportunity to review the government’s evidence and to even present evidence in defense to the charges. The accused and defense counsel are informed of the charges, the details of the investigation, witness statements, and have the opportunity, if desired, to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. An accused has the right to be present and participate in the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing. The Article 32 hearing provides the accused and his or her attorney(s) a powerful opportunity to review the government’s evidence and to even present evidence in defense to the charges. The accused and defense counsel are informed of the charges, the details of the Preliminary Hearing, witness statements, and have the opportunity, if desired, to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence on the accused’s behalf. What this means is that the Article 32 hearing is an excellent opportunity for the accused and defense team to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the government’s case. Moreover, the accused and defense counsel have a window of opportunity to present facts and evidence, when appropriate, and to attempt to persuade the Investigating Officer (IO) to recommend to the convening authority that some or all of the charges be dismissed, reduced to a lesser offense, and/or that the charges be referred to either a Special Court-Martial, Summary-Court Martial, or an Article 15 NJP/Captain’s Mast. The Accused Can Defend Against Charges at the Article 32 Stage An Article 32 Preliminary Hearing is one of the most important steps in the entire process of fighting charges brought by one’s command. In some cases, an Article 32 Preliminary Hearing could be more important than the actual Court-Martial trial itself – especially if the defense can persuade the convening authority that the charges should be dismissed, be reduced, or be resolved through a lesser forum. It is critical to have a highly experienced military criminal defense attorney involved in your case early on. Although you will be appointed a detailed military attorney to your case at no expense to you, it is always in your best interests to retain a highly qualified Civilian Defense Attorney who has the knowledge and experience that your detailed military counsel does not have. Having spent six consecutive years as a military defense counsel and senior defense counsel, Mr. Culp understands that many military attorneys have little experience in defending a contested court-martial. Even if they do have some trial experience, they may not have trial experience involving the offense you have been charged with. One thing is for sure, a detailed military defense counsel is rarely, if ever, going to have more than 2 years of experience defending against criminal charges in the military. What Does an Article 32 Preliminary Hearing and Hearing Offer the Accused? · To Be Informed Of The Actual Charges Under Preliminary Hearing · To Be Informed Of The Purpose Of The Preliminary Hearing · To Be Informed Of The Identity Of The Accuser(s) · To Be Informed Of The Identity Of Any Witness(es) · To Be Able To Cross-Examine Witnesses · To Be Informed Of Any Other Evidence · To Be Present During The Vetting Of Evidence · To Be Represented By Counsel Of Your Choice · To Be Informed Of The Right Against Self-Incrimination · To Be Able To Present Anything In Your Defense · To Make Any Statements That May Help In Your Defense Consider a Civilian Military Attorney For Your Article 32 Preliminary Hearing James Culp has the experience of 17 years of actual military law practice, having been a JAG officer and, later in his career, a supervisor-officer over entire teams of JAG lawyers and staff. James Culp has the skills and hands-on experience to aggressively investigate all of the allegations against you, including the government’s charges, its core evidence, witness statements, and can conduct a thorough review of all the facts during the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing. Mr. Culp regularly represents service members at Article 32 Hearings against criminal charges that DO NOT subsequently get referred to a court-martial.

HADITHA
LCpl Justin Sharratt was one of four Marines charged with murder on December 21, 2006 in connection with the killing of 24 Iraqi men, women and children in Haditha, Iraq. It was the U.S. military's deadliest criminal case to emerge from the Iraq war. LCpl Sharratt faced a life sentence if convicted.

ISKANDARIYAH
On July 1, 2007 Army Sergeant Evan Vela, a Ranger qualified sniper with the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, was charged with the premeditated murder of an Iraqi who had compromised his team’s hide position in the Triangle of Death. Sergeant Vela faced a life sentence if convicted.

RAMADI
On June 25, 2006 the Army charged Specialist Nathan Lynn of the 1st Battalion, 109th Infantry Regiment with the wrongful killing of an Iraqi who was shot to death while moving tactically on SPC Lynn’s position. SPC Lynn was also charged with conspiracy for his alleged role in planting an AK-47 at the scene.

CHARLES JENKINS
In the early morning hours of January 5, 1965, Sergeant Charles Robert Jenkins deserted his U.S. Army unit in South Korea and walked across the DMZ to North Korea where he remained until 2004. When he escaped North Korea in the summer of 2004, he was charged with desertion and aiding the enemy and faced a possible life sentence.

MAHMUDIYAH
The Al-Mahmudiyah killings occurred on March 12, 2006 in a house located south of Baghdad, Iraq in which four United States soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division raped and murdered a 14 year-old Iraqi girl after murdering her mother, father and 5 year old sister. All four Soldiers faced the possibility of the death sentence.

JALALABAD
On March 4, 2007, a convoy of Special Operations Marines was attacked outside of Jalalabad, Afghanistan. They responded in self defense. After the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission issued a report stating that 12 civilians were killed and 35 wounded, the NCIS initiated an investigation

BAGHDAD
In the Spring of 2007, an infantry First Sergeant, a Platoon Sergeant, and the company medic executed four Iraqi detainees in South Baghdad. SSG Jesse Cunningham revealed the murders and erroneously became one of seven Army soldiers charged with the killings. He faced a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison.

The information on military courts-martial, military appeals, military parole and clemency, military boards of correction, military discharge upgrade, veterans administration claims, military administrative discharge hearings, and claims against the federal government under the federal tort claims act provided by this Military Defense Attorney /Law Firm website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, e-mails, or other communications should be taken as legal advice from these military attorneys/lawyers, for any individual case or situation, civilian or military. This information on this website is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute an attorney-client relationship with these U.S. military attorneys/lawyers for any civilian or military purpose, including military courts-martial, military appeals, military parole and clemency, military boards of correction, military discharge upgrade, veterans administration claims, military administrative discharge hearings, and claims against the federal government under the federal tort claims act. The attorney-client relationship with these military attorneys/lawyers will be formed when this office sends out an engagement letter, you (the client) sign and return that letter with the fee agreed upon by you and this office for one or both of these military attorneys/lawyers to represent you as your military attorney/lawyer at locations worldwide such as Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Iraq, Quantico, Washington, DC, Fort Drum, Fort Stewart, Fort Lewis, Camp Pendleton, Camp LeJune, Schofield Barracks, Norfolk Naval Station, Fort Sam Houston, Fort Bliss, Germany, Korea, Iraq or Afghanistan. The civilian military defense attorneys/lawyers of this firm do not discriminate amongst the U.S. armed services and are prepared to represent U.S. military servicemen and servicemen from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and U.S. Coast Guard.

16238 Highway 620 Suite F-397 Austin, TX 78717 Toll Free: (800) 246-1515