Our Case Results

A Track Record of Success

Below are the case results of Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law, a military criminal defense attorney who serves active and retired servicemen nationwide. Please be aware that your case result is not guaranteed. The case results on the following pages are examples of cases that Mr. Jordan has won for his clients. To see how Mr. Jordan can help with your unique case matter, please contact him right away.

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault CASE DISMISSED

      U.S. ARMY V. E6 (SEXUAL ASSAULT, ABUSIVE SEXUAL CONTACT)

      Fort Bliss, Texas – May 2017

      Client was charged with Article 120, sexual assault. He was specifically charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a fellow Soldier within his unit while on a pre-deployment train up at Fort Bliss. Client is a Reservist who was mobilized along with his unit to deploy to the Middle East. The unit was given a holiday pass during the 4th of July weekend. Many of the Soldiers opted to stay in the Fort Bliss, El Paso area for the holiday, including our Client. The complaining witness in this case was married. On the evening in question she had sex at least twice with another Soldier who will be referred to as SPC S. C. After the second sexual encounter, our client stopped by the room looking for some items he had lost. SPC S. C. reportedly had to leave to deal with an issue back on Fort Bliss. Our client apparently stayed in the room for some time and then left.

      The complaining witness in this case wrote out several statements alleging that our client sexually assaulted her for over 30 minutes. She reports that our client’s penis was inside of her vagina for over 30 minutes. She reports texting SPC S.C. that she needed help. SPC S.C. shows up at the hotel shortly after she texted him. SPC S.C. took the complaining witness directly to the hospital. A sexual assault examination was conducted shortly after her arrival at the hospital. DNA was collected from the complaining witness during this examination. At a later date, a sexual assault examination was conducted on our client and DNA was also collected during this examination.

      The DNA taken from both the complaining witness and our client tells a very important story. First it is important to note that the DNA was collected from all over the complaining witnesses body to include inside her vagina and outside her vagina. The collection takes place within a few hours of the alleged sexual assault she claims took place for over 30 minutes. The complaining witness was taken to the hospital within minutes after she claims she was sexually assaulted. The DNA quite simply tells a different story. The DNA analysis specifically EXCLUDES our client’s DNA profile from being inside her vagina. Our client’s non-semen DNA profile was only noted on her pubic mound. The DNA analysis also shows that there is an unknown contributor to semen DNA inside the complaining witness’s vagina.

      The statements gathered in this case show that the alleged victim and SPC S.C. had sexual relations with each other prior to the alleged sexual assault. The statements in this case also show that shortly after the alleged victim and SPC S.C. had sex with each other our client had stopped by the hotel room looking for some items. What is of particular importance here is that the alleged victim was a married woman at the time she was having sexual intercourse with SPC S.C..

      As the evidence in this case developed, the we learned that the alleged victim had been an exotic dancer in her civilian life. Additionally, the defense learned from specific witnesses that the alleged victim had given lap dances to members of her unit.

      The DNA did not support the story of sexual assault as told by the complaining witness in this case. However, the DNA does support a story where the alleged victim participated and willingly gave a lap dance to our client in this case. It is the only logical explanation of how our clients non-semen DNA ended up on her pubic mound and not inside her vagina. It is the only logical explanation for how our client’s DNA was specifically excluded from being inside the complaining witness’s vagina. As for her motivations to claim sexual assault, the only logical and plausible explanation is the plan and clear fact that our client basically caught the alleged victim engaging in an inappropriate relationship with another member of the unit.

      The alleged victim in this case opted to withdraw from the participating in the case all together merely a week out from the docketed trial date. This forced the Military Prosecutors to withdraw the charges against our Client. Instead, they opted to give our Client a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR). First, we filed a personal statement with appropriate attachments and over 30 character letters in support of our client. We also filed another 15 character for untruthfulness affidavits on the alleged victim. These affidavits both for the defense and against the alleged victim were all gathered by our legal team from members of the Client’s unit. Lastly, we filed a legal review including much of the evidence mentioned above. In sum, the GOMOR was filed locally and our client was exonerated.

    • Forcible Rape - Military Sexual Assault Full Acquittal

      U.S. Army V. E-4, (Forcible Rape, Forcible Sodomy, Violations of Article 120, UCMJ)

      Fort Riley, Kansas

      Client was charged with 1 specification of forcible rape, and one specification of forcible sodomy. This case was extremely difficult. The alleged victim in this case reported her allegation immediately. She told her story immediately. Her story remained consistent, at least to all law enforcement entities. Our Client spoke to CID for at least 2.5 hours, placing himself at the scene, and agreeing to all the physical evidence in the case.

      The key issue in this case was determining whether force or consent was present. Both parties agreed that she came to the room to talk about her very recent break up with her boyfriend. Both parties agreed that a belt was used to tie her hands behind her back. Both parties agreed that an exercise belt was used to gag her. Both parties agreed that he ejaculated all over her torso. Both parties agreed that a condom was used. What was in dispute? Whether or not he forced her to be tied up and raped by threatening to use a knife.

      The other issue in dispute was who told who to delete text messages. She said he told her to delete text messages. He said she told him. The facts showed that she had her text messages, and that he did not have his.

      The government laid out their case rather simply, because in fact, on its face, it looked simple. It was up to the Defense to lay out the context for what happened in this case. First, the alleged victim had a history of lying. She had lied to investigators, and her chain of command during several investigations on her not related to this case. The Defense was able to capitalize on these facts to show that she was a liar. The Defense showed that she used people, including the Client, for her own uses. There were several specific instances where the Client was manipulated unwittingly into doing things that were against his interests.

      The Defense also capitalized on the fact that there were rumors surrounding the nature of the relationship between the Client and the complaining witness. The complaining witness had confronted the Client regarding these rumors on several occasions. So, why then was she in the room in the first place? She knew he was a motor mouth, why would she go to the room to talk about her break up with her boyfriend? The Defense showed that she had not had any contact with the Client for at least two months since the last time she confronted him about the rumors.

      Finally, the Defense capitalized on the fact that the complaining witness could leg press 480 lbs. She had plenty of opportunities to inflict a tremendous amount of damage upon the Client and she did not do so. To capstone the case, the Defense highlighted the fact that the Client went through a lot of effort to research why women like to be tied up, and how to recover his text messages AFTER the alleged incident occurred and before he was picked up by the authorities. All of those things lead to reasonable doubt. All of those things tend to show consent. Only through thorough investigation and pouring over the facts were Mr. Jordan and his team able to achieve victory on behalf of their Client.

      "I retained Mr. Joseph Jordan to defend my son, who was falsely accused of sexual assault. Though his experience, vast knowledge and sincere dedication, Mr. Jordan successfully saved my sons (life) and military
      career by achieving a verdict of NOT GUILTY.
      It is with great appreciation and respect that I highly recommend Mr. Joseph Jordan, Defense Attorney, he IS the Professional Choice, and our family could never thank him enough."

      Case Number: 501

    • Board of Inquiry - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Not Guilty

      US Army V. CW2 (Board of Inquiry)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      This client’s case was a unique one. As he was going through a very contentious divorce child custody proceeding, it came out that somehow his wife obtained his medical records. He reported this case to the proper military authorities and his wife was court-martialed.

      During the preliminary hearing, it came out that Client had video taped his soon to be ex-wife in the bathroom and whilst she was in the shower. His intent did not matter to the chain of command. His intent apparently did not matter to the Commanding General as he handed the Client his officially filed GOMOR. His intent only mattered to the Board of Inquiry.

      The defense successfully showed that the complaining witness in this case had been videoing confrontations between the two of them. So, the Client opted to set up a camera where they had several confrontations before. He was protecting himself. Nothing more. Unfortunately, some of the video occurred when she was naked in the shower. The Defense also showed that he had a stellar enlisted career, and that he had served well as a Warrant Officer. He had been on numerous deployments. The board found him not guilty of any wrong doing and opted to retain him.

      Case Number: 299

    • Article 15 - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Reduction of Pay

      Fort Belvoir, VA

      After receiving her initial Field Grade Article 15 reading, our client contacted us and hired us immediately after the initial consultation. Our client was charged with conspiracy (Article 81) and false and official statement (Article 107). After reviewing all the evidence that was discovered in the CID investigation, Mr. Jordan designed an apology statement to the Field Grade Officer from our client. This apology along with in-person testimony was given to the Field Grade Officer for his consideration at our client's second Article 15 reading.

      Result: The Field Grade Officer only reduced our client on pay grade and she was later informed that she will not be administratively separated.

      Case Number: 312

    • Cruelty and Maltreatment - General Military Crimes Not Guilty

      US Army v. E-7 (Article 93 Cruelty and Maltreatment to Subordinates x4, Article 128 Assault x 6, Article 134 x 2)

      Fort Campbell, Kentucky

      The case revealed that Client had received a GOMOR for the same charges she faced at Courts Martial. Multiple soldiers accused our Client of assaulting, and maltreating them. The case clearly showed that there were some personality conflicts and that Client likely was too familiar with the Soldiers. However, the case also showed that the majority of the charges ultimately amounted to horseplay and were not in fact assaults. Unfortunately, under the UCMJ, an assault is any unwanted touching. Fortunately, the case was not as egregious as the Government counsel hoped.

      Result: NOT GUILTY of 2 out of 6 specifications of Article 128 Assault. NOT GUILTY OF ALL Article 134 Offenses, NOT GUILTY of 2 of the 4 Article 93 (maltreatment offenses).

      Sentence: Reduction to E-6. NO CONFINEMENT. NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE!

      Case Number: 204

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      U.S. Army V. E-7, (Sexual Assault, Assault, Violations of Article 120 and 128, UCMJ)

      Kaiserslautern, Germany (Kleber Kaserne)

      Client is a 18 year veteran of the US Army. He has deployed 3 times and served as a Drill Sergeant. He was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a bar in Amsterdam during the Kings Day Parade. He was also accused of assaulting her by strangling her about 4 weeks after the aforementioned allegation.

      Client is stationed at SHAPE (Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe) , Belgium. About 4 years ago, he had an on again off again relationship with his soon to be accuser. In February of 2014, his accuser contacted him via social media. They began intense conversations about starting a life together. Unbeknownst to Client, his accuser was married, but living with her boyfriend…all while she is leading Client to believe that she wants to start a new life and come live with him. Client pays for her passport to be produced. Client pays for her online college classes. Client pays for her flight tickets to Belgium. Client pays for her car insurance whilst she visited him in Belgium. Client purchased a round trip ticket for her because they both wanted to return to the USA for personal matters relating to their family. The idea was, after their brief return to the States, she was going to move with him to a new duty station once he was slated to PCS. Over messaging, and email they talked about everything from marriage to kids. During her visit with Client, she was able to visit 5 countries and 7 major cities in less than 60 days. About half way through the trip, the accuser asks Client to take her to the post office on post to mail off her divorce paperwork. This was the first time Client was aware of her current marriage. A few weeks later, he overheard her talking to another man. Client also observed that his accuser had posted on facebook that she was in Orlando Florida, when in fact she was in Belgium with him. At this point, he had a enough and started his own investigation. He found out who the man was she was talking to was her ex-boyfriend. She was communicating to him that she was going to come back to the states, and go live with him. The ex-boyfriend had no idea that Client’s accuser was living with Client in Belgium. Client confronted her on what he had found out and that is when all hell broke loose. There was a lot of yelling on her part and then some tug of war with a purse, then she went yelling down the street. Belgian Federal Police arrive with the MPs shortly thereafter to collect her belongings. Then they took Client’s statement. Whilst Client was giving his statement on the porch of his residence, the accuser was sitting in one of the MP’s cruisers. When she saw him defending himself, she jumped out of the car on 3 different occasions yelling and screaming at Client. Picture a scene from COPS. On the third occasion, she asks the MP? “What is it when someone has sex with you and you don’t want it?” The MP said rape. Then she replied, “Since he is going to lie on me, how about he tell you about the time he raped me in Amsterdam.”

      Over the course of the investigation, the accuser gave slightly altered versions of her story. She lied to investigators about her marital status. She lied to investigators on scene about her military status. She told them she was in the Army Reserves, when in point of fact she had been discharged from the Army Reserves with an Other Than Honorable Discharge. Client was also unaware of that tidbit of information. What was most interesting was the story she told about Amsterdam. She detailed how she had drank a fair amount, but that she was aware of her surroundings and new what was going on. She detailed how she went upstairs to the bathroom under her own power with no help or assistance. Then she detailed that Client burst into her stall the second time she was in the bathroom, yanked her up, turned her around, shoved her head in the toilet bowl and raped her. Then she told the Belgian Federal Police that she had consensual sex with Client at least 7 more times after this alleged incident occurred.

      During trial, Mr. Jordan cross examined Client’s accuser for over 2 and half hours. He first started with her numerous and lengthy messages and emails with Client. The accuser did not want to agree to anything Mr. Jordan asked her, so he simply confronted her with her own words. On numerous occasions, the accuser, when shown her own words would simply reply, “That is what I read Mr. Jordan” and would not even agree with her own words. When confronted with 17 photos that the accuser took, some of which put her in bed with Client doing all manner of things, the accuser simply said “I’m done”, and with two dainty fingers, lightly slid the photos away from her as if they were discarded napkins. Mr. Jordan, confused by this response asked her, “what do you mean you are done? Are you done testifying? I don’t understand.” She replied that she was done looking at the photos when in point of fact she did not even look at them. After some back and forth between Mr. Jordan and the accuser, the Judge ordered the accuser to look at the photos, which were subsequently admitted into evidence and immediately shown to the jury. The accuser also attempted to trip Mr. Jordan up by saying his questions were too complicated or that he was speaking too fast. Mr. Jordan slowed his rate of speech down….on purpose. Then, being fed up with the accuser’s nonsense on the stand, asked her a series of questions pertaining to her education level on the fly. She had two years of college and was pursuing her LPN. This series of questions promptly drew an objection. Mr. Jordan responded with, “clearly this witness is well educated, multiple times she has requested that I slow down, or that I rephrase my questions.” The judge overruled the government’s objections and Mr. Jordan kept his cross-examination moving, thus speeding up to an appropriate speed to keep things going.

      Mr. Jordan skillfully, and artfully drew out all of the facts to show that the accuser was a liar, a manipulator and that she was clearly unstable. She made her allegations in late May of 2014. By mid July of 2014, she was married to a completely different man (not her ex-boyfriend previously mentioned). Client also took the stand and testified in his defense providing the real course of events of what occurred in the public restroom in Amsterdam. They were drinking. She went to the bathroom once on her own and then returned. They continued to drink and she told him that she wanted him. He asked for clarification, and she said she wanted him now. He asked for clarification and explained it would be a few hours before they would get back to their residence in Belgium. She said she wanted him now, and that they could go to the bathroom. So, they both trooped upstairs, they paid the bathroom attendant whose table was just outside the female bathroom, they went into the bathroom, entered a stall, and commenced in consensual sex.

      Client did state that after he confronted his accuser, she got upset and they got into a tussle with her purse. He bought her a Prada purse in Italy and he wanted to keep it because she was lying and cheating on him.

      Hard work, thorough investigation, seasoned case planning and withering cross examination won the day for this 18 Year E-7 Veteran of the U.S. Army.

      Result: NOT GUILTY of Sexual Assault, Guilty of Assault by exceptions and substitutions, excepting out the words assault by strangulation, and substituting the words tussle with a purse. Sentence: Reprimand, Forfeiture of $1,000 for two months. NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE.

      Case Number: 500

    • Forcible Rape - Military Sexual Assault No Charges

      U.S. Army v. E-5, (Forcible Rape, Violation of Article 120, UCMJ).

      Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

      Client was accused of sexual assault. The case was investigated for over a year. Client followed Mr. Jordan’s instructions and never made a statement.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Adverse Enlisted Administrative Separation Board - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Not Guilty

      US Army V. SFC (Adverse Enlisted Administrative Separation Board)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      The Client is a Combat Medic and veteran of 5 deployments….all as a combat medic. Client was accused of participating in “camel surfing”, committing unsafe acts in a UH-60, and allowing an unrated crew member to fire from the aircraft. This case required some heavy lifting. Oddly enough, the easiest issue to resolve was the camel surfing. The reason why it was easy was because our Client was the whistle blower on the whole mess. He immediately reported the unsafe acts he observed as well as what the other members of his unit were doing. Next came the unsafe acts. The Defense successfully demonstrated that the pilots, (against regulation), did not always tell the passengers and crew what they were doing. However, the Client was always properly secured to the aircraft when he was moving around. Lastly, the Defense showed through evidence, that he and his unit were authorized to allow the individual in question to shoot from their aircraft. It was authorized, it was SOP and the action was specifically approved by the chain of command during the time frame it happened. The Client did nothing wrong. There was a lot of evidence. However, all the evidence actually did was exonerate the Client. The interesting thing in this case was that it got to this place in the first place. The case was built off of perception, rather than what the evidence actually said. He received a GOMOR and a relief for cause NCOER all based off of perceptions. At least in this case he was found not guilty based on what the evidence said. He was retained. As a result of his numerous deployments, he will likely medically board out of the military. The right result occurred in this case.

      Case Number: 298

    • Adverse Enlisted Administrative Separation Board - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Not Guilty

      US Army V. SGT (Adverse Enlisted Administrative Separation Board)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Two different complaining witnesses at two different points accused client of cruelty and maltreatment as well as assault in time. Originally, CID investigated both cases. Both cases had elements of sexual assault to them, however neither case resulted in sexual assault charges being reported. It was vitally important to understand the timeline of events in this case. The first allegation resulting in an article 15 involved Client horsing around with the accuser and calling him chuckles. The accuser, a male, specifically said that any unwanted touching was a sexual touching. The punishment was suspended for that article 15. Then the 2nd allegation occurred. The interesting thing that the defense uncovered was that a very substandard Soldier who worked in the S-1 shop made the 2nd allegation. She made her allegation at the time that our client received his first reading of the first article 15. Her allegations were originally blown completely out of proportion, which sparked a sexual assault investigation. Additionally, thorough investigation revealed that the complaining witness had in fact told several inconsistent versions of events about what occurred, where it occurred and when it occurred. Additionally the defense dug up 9 witnesses who testified to the Client’s character for truthfulness as well as the complaining witnesses character for untruthfulness. Thorough investigation and hard work achieved victory for this Soldier.

      Case Number: 297

    • Board of Inquiry - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Retained

      US Army v. CW2 (Board of Inquiry)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      A 19 year veteran of the United States Army contacted Mr. Jordan because he was facing a BOI. This veteran had worked his way through the enlisted ranks until he felt motivated enough to become a Chief Warrant Officer. He spent his whole career in the food service. 2/3s through his initial tour in Japan, this Warrant Officer came under investigation and scrutiny for several allegations of inappropriate conduct towards local national women. The investigation was a farce. In fact, it was the worst investigation into an officer that Mr. Jordan had ever reviewed. The investigation's conclusions relied on 3 rd party hearsay. The investigator never interviewed the alleged complaining witnesses himself. He took the word of senior staff officers who allegedly interviewed these women, though they had no notes, or sworn statements to corroborate their claims. What's worse is the Commanding General that signed off on the eventual General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, was himself removed from his position due to the alleged mishandling of investigations. Nonetheless, due to the "bad paper" in this officer's file, a BOI was initiated. Mr. Jordan thoroughly investigated all of the problems and issues with this case. Mr. Jordan was able to find several high ranking officers who were willing to testify on behalf of his Client.

      Case Number: 301

    • Administrative Separation Board - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Honorable Discharge

      US v. E-7 (Administrative Separation Board for patterns of misconduct)

      Wiesbaden, Germany

      Client had ended up working in a very hostile work environment. The claim was that he was the individual making it a hostile work environment, however it was not true. His subordinates filed complaints leading to one of several reasons for the adverse separation board. Additionally the client had been accused by a State for child abuse. The State dropped those charges, yet the Army saw fit to attempt to pursue them…unsuccessfully.

      During the board the defense team was able to successfully outline that Client had a number of severe mental health issues that led to much of his conduct.

      Result: Honorable Discharge due to Medical Reasons. Board recommended General Discharge, however the defense was able to successfully advocate to the Commanding General that the medical discharge was more appropriate in our clients case.

      Case Number: 305

    • Board of Inquiry - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Retained

      US ARMY V. MAJ (BOARD OF INQUIRY)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      This Client hired Mr. Jordan to represent him in a board of inquiry. Boards of inquiry are initiated as an elimination action for officers who have unfavorable paperwork in their files. This officer was given a General Officer Memorandum of Record for violating a military protective order. Mr. Jordan and his team relentlessly dug into the facts behind this case. As it turned out, Mr. Jordan's client was going through an extremely contentious divorce. While deployed, his Client suffered the worst type of betrayal from his now ex-wife. She had cheated on him with numerous soldiers that were in his previous unit. Upon returning from the deployment, the Client discovered an empty home. What furniture and belongings that were left, were destroyed and vandalized. He began to rebuild his life. His ex-wife continued to hound his every step by making up false allegations, and insisting on a very contentious divorce. The Client's chain of command did not fully support the Client and decided to take the ex-wife's side. That is at least the perception of the Client and Mr. Jordan. Apparently that was the board's perception as well. While there may have been a violation to military protective order, the facts showed that this violation was virtually unavoidable.

      Case Number: 300

    • Board of Inquiry - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Honorable Discharge Recommendation

      US Army v. Warrant Officer (Board of Inquiry)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      This officer had a very unique career arc. He first started off in the Navy, where he ended up working in White House Communications for a long period of time. His service encompassed the overlap of two different serving Presidents. Then he decided to switch services in order to serve his country in a more visceral way. He ended up at Fort Hood Texas and completed three deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, his last deployment was particularly difficult on him and was the eventual cause of the reasoning behind the Show Cause Board. When Mr. Jordan got involved he immediately noticed that there were some medical issues with his client. He asked if his client was seeking treatment which he was. However, he had not started the medical evaluation board process. Mr. Jordan helped him kick start the process. This officer was able to complete the medical board process in time for his BOI hearing. Without going through much detail about this case, it is enough to say that the Board was very reasonable in considering his overall career. The Board also considered the medical board's diagnosis and recommendations. The Board took all factors presented by Mr. Jordan and his co-counsel into consideration and recommended an Honorable Discharge from the Army. The key take way for recommendations from a Board is that the approval authority cannot execute a harsher characterization of service then what the Board recommends.

      Result: Honorable Discharge Recommendation. Overall disposition pending due to MEB findings.

      Case Number: 304

    • Adverse Administrative Separation Board - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Retained

      U.S. Army v. E-4 (Adverse Administrative Separation Board)

      Fort Hood Texas

      Client came under investigation for sexual assault of a girlfriend of another Soldier. The investigation turned out to be insufficient to take to a Court-Martial so the Client's chain of command opted to take him to a Adverse Administrative Separation Board for Commission of Serious Misconduct (i.e., the original alleged sexual assault). The chain of command took no prefatory action against the Client. They did not issue a GOMOR. They did not give Client an Article 15. They just initiated a Separation Action with the recommendation that Client receive an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

      The evidence in this case was terrible for the government. However, this case was pursued in the current wake of the war on sexual assault. In this case, the complaining witness made no complaint until 5 months later. Her story was quite divergent from her boyfriend's statement. In fact, her boyfriend witnessed the whole interaction between the client and the accuser. The boyfriend's description of what happened included statements such as, "she did not seem to mind", "she never pushed him away," , "she let him do it", "she went through the night like nothing happened". So, the one corroborating witness to the allegation could not definitively say that he actually observed a sexual assault. The complaining witness refused to testify at the board as well. Mr. Jordan was able to exploit the aforementioned inconsistencies along with many others not mentioned here. Further, Mr. Jordan presented the plain fact that the Client had a spotless, and outstanding military career through this allegation. He had deployed, graduated from WLC, achieved advanced military certifications in his field and served his country honorably. The board could not find the Client guilty of the offenses. Thus, the board voted to retain the Client.

      Case Number: 303

    • GOMOR - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Acquittal

      U.S. Army v. CPT/ O-3 (GOMOR)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Our client contacted us after he had been interrogated several times by an investigation team regarding potential secret documents brought home from deployment. We advised our client to cease all communication with the investigative team and to take the nickel from this point forward. Our client did as directed, the interrogations stopped, and the investigation was complete a few months later. The commanding general issued him a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) for his potential mishandling of the secret documents. After considering all evidence brought forth, Mr. Jordan drafted an apology statement for the CPT's review and signature. The apology statement and character witness statements were submitted to the chain of command for their recommendations to the commanding general for his disposition of the GOMOR.

      Result: The General then ordered that the GOMOR be filed in the CPT's local file. The CPT was not issued a bad OER either. This result has far wider affects for this officer's career. If the GOMOR had been filed in his official file, then a Board of Inquiry would have been ordered and this officer would have had to show cause why he should be retained in the Army. By securing a locally filed GOMOR on behalf of this officer, he will not be subjected to the stigma and headache of a Board of Inquiry.

      Case Number: 313

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault No Confinement

      US Marine Corps vs. E-6, (Article 120, Sexual Assault)

      Okinawa Japan

      Client was facing 3 Sexual Assault Charges in addition to an Adultery. Client was facing 70 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

      Trial Result: Client was found not guilty of all Sexual Assault Charges (60 years worth of confinement alone knocked off a potential sentence) and Not Guilty of Adultery. Guilty on Fraternization and Guilty of Consensual Sodomy.

      Result: Reduction to E-1 and a Bad Conduct Discharge. No confinement. The Bad Conduct Discharge is appealable. Stay tuned for more details.

      Case Number: 507

    • Child Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Full Acquittal

      US Army v. E-5 (Article 120b, Child Sexual Assault)

      Fort Wainwright

      Client faced 2 charges of child sexual assault. Client voluntarily absented himself from the trial and was tried in abstentia in front of Officer Members.

      Client was found Not Guilty of all Charges and Specifications.

      Case Number: 506

    • Article 112a - General Military Crimes 1 Year of Confinement Adjuged

      US Air Force v. E-4 [Article 112a, Article 92, Article 89, Article 111, Article 134)

      Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska (JBER)]

      Client was originally facing an article 15 and possibly administrative separation for spice use. The client made multiple statements to OSI hoping to cut a deal. However, his conversations with OSI resulted in a search of his car and room. OSI however seized multiple items from his room that was not part of the original search warrant which would have violated Article 92 and possibly Article 121. Because these items were not part of the search warrant, a Judge would have suppressed the items from being entered as evidence. Ultimately, the defense successfully negotiated those alleged offenses away. As the case progressed, the client continued to commit misconduct. His continued misconduct resulted in 5 months of pretrial confinement at the Anchorage Confinement Facility. Over the course of the confinement, the defense team learned that the Anchorage Jail was not following procedures laid out in a memorandum of agreement that it had agreed to follow when housing Air Force Airmen in confinement. A thorough search of the case law revealed that our client was not the first client that had issues with the Anchorage Confinement Facility. In our brief to the Judge for Pre-trial confinement credit, we cited U.S. v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F. 2011) where another airman was subjected to unacceptable standards while in confinement at the Anchorage confinement facility. Ultimately the Judge ended up giving our client 11 months of confinement credit. Over the course of the case, the defense team negotiated a deal on behalf of the client for 24 months of confinement.

      Result: Guilty Plea. 1 year of confinement adjudged. The Air Force decided to forgo the remaining confinement credit and the client was able to go free the very day of the Courts Martial.

      Case Number: 210

    • U.S. Navy v. O-5 - General Military Crimes No Charges

      U.S. Navy v. O-5

      NRD Portland, Oregon

      The Client came under investigation for violations of the Joint Federal Travel Regulation as and making a False Official Statement. The Client was accused of misappropriating thousands of dollars for an allegedly improper purpose.

      Result: No Charges Brought! While portions of the initial investigation were founded, several mitigating circumstances were highlighted allowing this fine officer to continue on in his career.

      Case Number: 209

    • AWOL - General Military Crimes Sentence Reduction

      U.S. Army v. E-3 (AWOL)

      The Client was charged with two AWOL's, and threatening a Superior Officer. The Client was allegedly AWOL for approximately 5 years before he was picked up on a warrant. Prior to Mr. Jordan's appearance in this case, a Senior NCO convinced the Client that his Military Defense counsel did not have the Client's best interests at heart and that he should go AWOL again.

      Upon the Client's second arrest on warrants, Mr. Jordan was brought on board to represent this client. Over the course of 5 months, a deal was reached that the maximum amount of time the Client would serve in confinement was 6 months.

      Result: Guilty, 3 months confinement, Reduction to E-1 and Bad Conduct Discharge. Mr. Jordan successfully beat the deal by effectively cross-examining the Government's sentencing witnesses on how they treated their soldier. Impressive mitigating circumstances existed prompting the Judge to have mercy upon Mr. Jordan's Client.

      Case Number: 207

    • Manslaughter - General Military Crimes Charges Dropped

      U.S. Army v. E-4 (MANSLAUGHTER)

      Fort Drum, New York

      The Client was charged with the criminal offenses of Manslaughter (Article 119) and Negligent Discharge (Article 134). The Client was accused of unlawfully killing a fellow Soldier while deployed. The fellow Soldier was the client's best friend.

      The original strategy was to try this case. The victim's family in this case fully supported Mr. Jordan's Client. They even testified at the Article 32 hearing, imploring the Army Prosecutors to not go forward to Courts-Martial. Of course, the prosecutors and the Convening Authority ignored such stirring testimony and the charges were referred to Courts-Martial.

      Through intense discovery requests, Mr. Jordan was able to learn that not one, but several negligent discharges had occurred within the unit in question without any repercussions. To make matters worse, NO corrective actions were ever taken against the individuals who was actually responsible for pulling the trigger! Mr. Jordan also pointed out the inequity of the Government regarding unfairly charging his client when he discovered that there was yet another case – IN THE SAME UNIT- where a Captain was negligently shot in the leg by his driver while on a routine patrol; however, that driver was not put on trial. Armed with this knowledge, Mr. Jordan pushed the Army prosecutors to the negotiating table.

      Result: Charges Dropped! Over the course of 4 long months Mr. Jordan was able to negotiate a deal on behalf of his Client where his Client would be administratively discharged from the Army without facing a Courts-Martial. He has no criminal record and no felony conviction.

      Case Number: 208

    • Larceny and Conspiracy - General Military Crimes Not Guilty of Conspiracy

      U.S. Army v. E-7 (LARCENY)

      Fort Benning, GA

      The Client was accused of conspiracy to steal over $84,000 and larceny of $84,000 worth of pay. Client was a 51year old E-7 facing over 20 years in prison.

      Result: Not Guilty of Conspiracy to Commit Larceny. Guilty of Larceny. The Client's sentence was reduction to E-4, a fine, and 45 days confinement. No Punitive Discharge! Due to the rules of retirement, it appears that he will keep his E-7 retirement.

      Case Number: 206

    • Article 121 and 132 - General Military Crimes Charges Dropped

      US Air Force v TSgT (Article 121, Article 132)

      Fairchild, AFB, Washington

      Client hired Mr. Jordan to defend against larceny and wrongful claims against the Government. The Client is a test parachutist who was in charge of managing contracted jumps. The Government attempted to allege that Client some how made false claims against the Government by over charging jump time. The government could provide no credible evidence to support this outrageous claim.

      Case Number: 205

    • Article 15 - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Oral Reprimand

      U.S. ARMY V. SSG (ARTICLE 15)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      This client called us the day he was counseled by his supervisor that he was being recommended to his chain of command for an Article 15 (NJP). Despite not having an Article 15 read to him or having it in hand yet, the move to hire us that night was utmost crucial to his case because his chain of command was notified immediately that he had hired us and that he was serious about fighting his Article 15. This veteran NCO wanted to make sure he had a good quality attorney and paralegal team in his corner because he had 17 years of honorable service at stake and this was his first mishap. Although the NCO was not given his first reading until several months later, our client constantly kept us updated and informed. Our client then began sending us documents to review, which allowed us to do research and our own investigation prior to his first reading. Once the NCO was finally given his first Article 15 reading, he was facing a single charge of dereliction of duty on a summarized Article 15. This meant that he was only looking at extra duty for seven days, restriction for seven days, and an oral reprimand. Our client considered this a win already; however, we were relentless and going to do our due diligence and provide him with the best defense no matter how big or small the case was. We put together his rebuttal matters and pointed out each deficiency in their investigation and documentation. The NCO came out of the second Article 15 reading with an oral reprimand. Our client couldn't thank us enough for our help; however, he did the hardest part, hiring us to assist him. Not everyone does but it can save you your career. Give us a call today if you are in a situation similar to this NCO's.

      Case Number: 307

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      US v. E8 (Sexual Assault, False Official Statement & Violating a Lawful Order)

      Ramstein AFB, Germany - June 2017

      Client was charged with sexually assaulting one of his airmen after responding to a domestic disturbance reported between her and her husband at her residence. He was also charged with false official statement and inappropriate relationship with the alleged victim. The alleged victim had a history of violence against her husband and other individuals. She had been punished in the past by the chain of command for her indiscretions. Specifically, the alleged victim had received an article 15 for assaulting her husband on two different occasions, one of which was with a knife. Her commander suspended punishment on her rank only. On the night in question, less than 45 days later she is in another domestic dispute with her husband, so loud that the neighbors called the MPs. There was broken glass everywhere. Defense investigation learned that the alleged victim throw a wine bottle at her husband’s head. Our client shows up after the MPs to assess the situation. After the husband was taken away, and the house was cleaned up, the alleged victim took her child upstairs. She came down stairs, seduced my client, wondering if there was something to they could work out given her predicament. She was an E-5 on a suspended bust. If the chain of command found out she was the perpetrator of yet another domestic incident, they would lift her suspension busting her to E-4 and would potentially give her another Article 15. All of this would have put her past her retention control point, thus pushing her out of the Air Force. She knew this. Her husband knew this. She willingly had sex with our client and then turned around and claimed rape. She claimed rape for several reasons. One, it insured her commander would focus on the rape allegation as opposed to the 2nd domestic violence allegation. Two, she wanted to move to a duty station that was close to her family. Her plan worked. The commander did not take any action against her regarding the 2nd domestic incident. The alleged victim was moved to the states to a location that was very close to her friends and family. We diligently investigated this case. We presented our finding through effective cross examination of the witnesses as well as putting up our own witnesses. Our client was found not guilty of the sexual assault crime.

      In a previous hearing he chose to plead guilty to the false official statement.

      Result: NOT GUILTY OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. Guilty of inappropriate relationship and false official statement.

      Sentence: Reduction to E-4.

      Case Number: N/A

    • GOMOR - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Locally Filed

      U.S. Army v. COL (GOMOR)

      Kuwait

      Client was given a general officer memorandum of reprimand for allegedly promoting hazing and for allegedly failing to report a serious incident report. Client is a medical professional who was in charge of a team. After thorough investigation of the case, we were able to determine that the individual alleged to have been hazed stated himself that he knew he was not being hazed. The incident was some horse play surrounding the Soldier’s promotion ceremony. As for the serious incident report, one of the Client’s Soldier’s suffered an injury. Client took the proper immediate actions to ensure the Soldier’s safety and treatment. However, the Client mistakenly believed that the report went up via a different agency. However in spite of that, we were able to show that Client was still diligently researching the issue as to what to do.

      Case Number: 294

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Charges Dropped

      US Air Force v. E-5 (Sexual Assault, Solicitation, Pandering)

      Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson, Alaska

      Client was charged with sexually assaulting his wife on multiple occasions, and with solicitation and pandering of another woman. The defense thoroughly investigated this case early on. We spent weeks interviewing witnesses, pouring over documents and reviewing recorded interviews and interrogations. We went to great lengths to find key witnesses in the Anchorage area. We were also able to secure an interview with the alleged victim lasting several hours. Interviews with alleged victims in today’s environment are extremely hard to execute. Ultimately, after weeks of work we were able to learn about several key issues, which eventually led to the end result in this case. This was the best result possible for the client under the circumstances of the case.

      Result: Charges Dropped. Administratively Discharged, in lieu of Court Martial. Federal Felony Avoided. Sexual Assault Registration Avoided.

      Case Number: 516

    • Article 15 - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Dismissed

      U.S. Army v. SSG (Article 15)

      Germany

      Originally our client contacted us during the investigation phase of his case; however, despite our advise, he opted to wait. Nonetheless, he listened to our initial advise from our consultation and did not give a statement to the authorities, which later put him in a better position. Our client then brought Mr. Jordan on board once he received his initial Field Grade Article 15 reading. Our client was charged with one count of assault against his wife (domestic violence). His command, as many do, granted a small delay in the proceedings to allow Mr. Jordan to assist him with his defense. After reviewing the poor investigation conducted by the military police and the sworn statement from the complaining witness, our client was finally able to give his side of the story through Mr. Jordan’s assistance, guidance and oversight. Additionally, our team was able to conduct witness interviews. One witness provided a written statement while the other was able to testify to the commander. The statement from the Soldier, witnesses statements/testimony, and character letters were submitted to the battalion commander at the second Article 15 hearing.

      Result: The battalion commander found him not guilty, and the Article 15 was dismissed.

      Testimonial from client: "...thankfully my life will get back to normal soon. Thank you so much for your patience and assistance during this process. It was a quick process but you worked hard to ensure that I was equipped with what I needed to be successful."

      Case Number: 295

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      U.S. Army v. E-6, (Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault of a Minor, Assault, Obstruction of Justice) (4 Specifications of Article 120,

      Fort Hood, Texas

      "You want to see evil, just you wait, I’ll show you evil! If they assume what I am, then why not show them what I am! I am doing this just to do it." These were the words of the alleged victim during the course of the investigation into this case. When this case was originally investigated, Client was about to drop his retirement paperwork and he was under going a medical evaluation board. Client had served his country honorably as a combat medic. He had deployed several times and suffered through more than a few IED attacks. When these horrendous allegations were levied against him he had a mental break down. We asked for an evaluation to be conducted to see if he would be fit for trial. Seeing that the medical professionals deemed Client unfit for trial, we requested an abatement of the trial which was granted. After 4 months of treatment, Client was released and the Court-Martial was turned back on. The alleged victim sent the defense a memo stating that she did not want to participate in this case. Then the defense found out that even she was made to take the stand, she would lie. She did end up coming to the trial and testifying. The defense was able to successfully cross examine the alleged victim in this case by challenging her on her incredible claims. She reported that she had been raped over a 100 times. She reported the rapes occurred when her mother was at work. She reported she had been raped on her parent’s bed and at times, while even on her menstrual cycle. Yet, she could not consistently or definitively report what specifically happened to her the first time, the last time or at any time she alleges that she was raped. There was no physical evidence to corroborate her claims. Client’s wife consistently reported that there was no funny smells from the sheets when she came home. There was no freshly washed clothes or sheets. There were no bloody towels. There were no bloody sheets. There was no DNA. There was no physical evidence of any kind save apparent lies of the alleged victim in this case

      Case Number: 499

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      U.S. Army v. E-5, (Sexual Assault, Sodomy, Desertion, False official Statement)

      Fort Hood Texas

      Client was wrongly accused of sodomy and sexual assault over 5 years ago at Fort Hood Texas. He was invited out of his room to a costume part where his eventual accuser was attending. They talked, they danced. The topic of her breast implants came up. Client and his roommate offered their rooms and the apartment as a place to stay to all of the folks attending the party. The prosecutrix specifically chose Client’s room. She chose to sleep in his bed when she had other options, including sharing the other room with another female. She slept in his bed. He came to bed later after the party was cleaned up. It was a small bed, and he had to sleep on his side. Later, he woke up to her grabbing his arm, putting it on her breasts, and her bumping and grinding her butt into his groin area. He perceived that she was awake and proceeded to engage in sexual actions with her to which she did not protest. Her actions and words indicated that she was consenting to his actions. However, she had drunk alcohol the night prior. At least 4 hours prior. She was a military police officer and was not permitted to drink alcohol within 8 hours of her shift. When the sexual act occurred, she had to go to work within the hour, and she had stopped drinking a mere 4 hours earlier. Everyone knew she had drank. She drank a fair amount. She went to work, drew her weapon, drew her car, started on patrol….and later that day reported. Everyone also knew she slept in the room with Client. The unit that both Client and the prosecutrix were in was known for spreading rumors. Given the circumstances of the night, the accuser’s motive to lie, and Client’s uncontroverted character for truthfulness it, Client had a great case against the sodomy and sexual assault charges he was facing. Unfortunately, when he was initially questioned, he declined to admit that he had any sexual interaction with the accuser. A few weeks later, he decided to tell the whole story as to what happened. Client went to the Article 32 hearing and it appeared to have went well. He learned that a favorable ruling was likely. But he also learned that the unit was going to prosecute him no matter what, so he made the unfortunate decision to leave his unit.

      RESULT: NOT GUILTY OF ALL SEXUAL ASSAULT CHARGES, NOT GUILTY OF SODOMY, Guilty of Desertion and Guilty of False Official Statement.

      SENTENCE: Results Available on Request.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Rape of Child - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      US Army v. E-4 (Indecent Liberties w/ Child, Rape of a Child, Violating a General Regulation, Abusive Sexual Contact of a Child)

      Fort Hood Texas

      Client was accused of raping two alleged victims. The alleged victims were his step daughter and her friend. Client was also accused of offering alcohol to three different minors, assaulting his step daughter and sexual abusing his step daughter. The nature of the abusive sexual contact charges and the sexual abuse charges with respect to his step daughter were 2 alleged butt slaps. The other sexual abuse charge had to do with the step daughter’s friend. Charges stemmed from the step daughter alleging that Client had raped her and her friend in the woods in a housing area on Fort Hood. The defense successfully showed that it was a factual impossibility to the jury by presenting and arguing Client’s alibi. Client was also charged with masturbating in front of his step daughter over 5 years ago. The defense successfully showed this could not have happened either.

      RESULT: Client was found NOT GUILTY of all Rape of a Child charges pertaining to both alleged victims. Client was found NOT GUILTY of the Sexual Abuse of a Child charge relating to the friend of the step daughter. Client was found NOT GUILTY of indecent liberties with a child. Client was only found guilty of the Article 92 violations, and the sexual abuse of a child charges relating to the two butt slaps.

      SENTENCE: Results Available on Request.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Abuse of Minor - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      U.S. Air Force v. E-7 (Sexual Abuse of a Minor, Child Pornography)

      Ramstein, Air Force Base, Germany

      Client was charged with viewing child pornography. Client was charged with sexual abusing two sisters who happen to be daughters of his neighbor in Niedermohr Germany. The nature of the sexual abuse alleged was touching, intentionally showing pornography and requesting that one of the sisters touch Client’s penis. At the time the allegations arose, the alleged victims were 8 and 10 years old respectfully. The case was a puzzle from the very beginning. OSI ran charging into this case like a bull in a china shop. After hearing the initial report from the alleged victims, they went to Client’s house and requested to search. Our client consented. They never told him during the search that he could refuse the search. Additionally, they never told him during the search that he could prevent seizure of any of his items save a warrant. He never knew they had a warrant until a few days later. OSI seized his computer and a hard drive because OSI perceived that one of the alleged victims had been forced to watch pornography. OSI wanted to corroborate this perceived claim. Additionally OSI interviewed Client who willingly gave a statement for over an hour. Then he requested a lawyer. After he requested a lawyer OSI still came back and requested more information, specifically, the password to his computer. Client requested a lawyer. OSI wrongly stated that a lawyer could not help him with that, and that their request was administrative. OSI had no business making that statement. Client acquiesced to their request and OSI illegally obtained this computer password. OSI searched both the computer and an external hard drive, failing to find the porn video that the alleged victim gave a statement about. Instead, they found hidden thumbs.db files that seemed to be child pornography. Now, OSI’s original warrant did not state that child pornography was within the scope of the search. During the trial, OSI agents readily admitted that they were not looking for child pornography initially. Once the initial hit was made, OSI failed to obtain an additional warrant searching the computer and hard drive for child pornography. Instead, they sent off the computer and hard drive to their labs in Maryland to be tested and scrutinized for child pornography. The Air Force Defense Counsel, Captain John Jamison, succeeded in convincing the Court to suppress the evidence from this search. What was interesting here was the fact that even if this charge was not dismissed, the prosecutors had no way to prove that Client had viewed child pornography based off the nature of the files found. We learned this based off of the stellar research and analysis conducted by James Goldman, of Global Compu Search. The alleged victims claims were fantastical. The older of the two claimed that Client hugged funny. She also claimed that she could see him masturbating through the frosted window next to Client’s home as she made her way up the walk way. Her sister claimed the same allegations, among others already mentioned. This case came down to credibility. Both alleged victims are extremely intelligent. They are gifted students. They are very articulate. Their parents were going through significant financial issues. Additionally, Client spent a lot of time with their father playing board games, which also caused strife in the home and marriage. We offered a motive to fabricate to the jury that the girls wanted to keep the family together, and that they thought Client was the major catalyst in tearing the family apart. The defense also subtly showed that the girl’s knowledge about sexual matters could have easily come from their father. During the time frame of the allegations, their father was conducting an illicit affair with his wife’s co-worker. One of the alleged victims stumbled into his man cave when he was looking at her naked picture on his computer. Lastly Client opted to take the stand. Six individuals attesting to his character for truthfulness buttressed his testimony. It made no sense for a 17 year veteran of the Air Force, studying for his E-8 board, studying for his Masters degree, with a relatively new wife and newborn daughter to commit the acts charged. The military panel of 7 agreed and found him not guilty. Many thanks for the contributions of Captain John Jamison, Dr. Mark Whitehill, James Goldman, and Mr. Michael West of Arkansas Investigations to this case.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Larceny - General Military Crimes Resolved

      United States Coast Guard v. E3 (Article 121, Larceny)

      US Coast Guard Station San Juan, Puerto Rico

      Client was accused of fellow Coast Guardsmen necklace. The alleged victim valued the necklace at over $5,000. Charges were preferred at a Special Courts Martial. Mr. Jordan successfully negotiated the case to be resolved at a Summary Court Martial. There, the Client was found guilty, but because he had immediately given the necklace back, and because of some special circumstances, the Client received minimal punishment. The unit did not initiate an adverse administrative separation action against Client. He still serves today.

      Result: Case was negotiated to be resolved at Summary Court Martial. Finding was Guilty. Sentence was extra duty for 30 days. No adverse administrative separation action was initiated against client.

      Case Number: N/A

    • GOMOR - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Withdrawn

      US Army v. 03 (GOMOR) (Sexual Assault, False Official Statement)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Client was originally accused of sexually assaulting and harassing an NCO. Client was subjected to 3.5 hours of CID interrogation where he adamantly denied these awful allegations. However, the GOMOR was issued for false official statement based on the interrogation. The root of this case stemmed from a disgruntled NCO who was not selected by Client to be his First Sergeant. Mr. Jordan and his team were able to successfully show that the NCO made false accusations against Client. More importantly, Mr. Jordan and his team were able to show that Client did not in fact lie during his interrogation.

      Result: The GOMOR was withdrawn and DESTROYED.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Rape - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      U.S. Navy v. E-3 (Rape, Violation of Article 120; UCM, Indecent Exposure, Violation of Article 120c)

      Pensacola Naval Station & Corry Station, Pensacola, Florida

      Client was accused of raping a fellow Sailor after leaving a bar on Corry Station. Client had been drinking with friends. The accuser came to the bar the Client was at shortly after midnight and began to hang around the accused. She drank, but did not seem noticeably drunk. She specifically stated that she was okay, and that Client would walk her home. After the bar closed down, Client began to walk her home. Over 2 hours later she showed up in her barracks room, claimed she made a mistake and went to bed. Over the course of the trial, the evidence revealed that the alleged victim was not as drunk as she wanted everybody to believe, that she was not incapable of consent, and that she was not even sure in her own mind that she was raped. She certainly did not exhibit it. During her NCIS statement she giggled and laughed throughout. During her in court testimony she displayed the same demeanor. On the stand she admitted to saying to her friends the next morning the following: “I may or may not have been raped last night”. She also admitted to requesting that Client walk her home AFTER she was allegedly raped because she did not feel safe. Lastly, the accused and her roommate told differing accounts about what happened in the aftermath. In the end, there was no other finding the Judge could make in this case but Not Guilty.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Full Acquittal

      U.S. Navy v. E-6 (Sexual Assault, Indecent Viewing) Article 120 and Article 120c

      Naval Air Station Lemoore, California

      Client was charged with sexual assault of a female sailor while in a port call in Perth, Australia. The accuser reported the allegation over 2 months after the port call. All she reported was that she was picked up off the down stairs couch, taken to Client's room and sexually assaulted in the early morning hours of their 4th day in Perth. She stated that she allowed herself to be picked up off the couch because our Client “had always been so nice to her before.” Our client was interrogated a few days after the accuser’s report. He was naturally quite surprised at the allegation. He was also angry. He was not scared or in fear of his career. He was angry that someone would falsely accuse him of such a crime. He answered all the NCIS questions fired at him. He adamantly maintained his innocence and flatly stated the accusers allegations didn’t happen. Then he added something that NCIS did not know. On the evening of the third night (before the alleged sexual assault), he went up stairs of the house they were staying in and walked into the upstairs living room where he found the future accuser and another sailor having sex on the living room couch. She smiled at him. He took a picture. Then he went down stairs, realizing what he had done, and deleted the picture. Without another thought, he went out to the Casino that night, came back in the early morning and went to sleep. It is at this point that the accuser says she was sexually assaulted. NCIS then called the accuser in for a second interview 5 months after her initial report to confront her on this new information. She reported that Client did not only see her naked having sex with another Sailor, but that he stood over them whilst they were having sex, that he crawled on his belly while they were having sex, that he touched her while she was having sex, and finally that he took her hand and placed it on his penis and while she was having sex with the other Sailor. What is interesting about this is that she never reported this before. If this is indeed true, it’s a type of sexual assault. Lastly, all of this occurred prior to him allegedly picking her up off the couch. This is not something that would be considered a nice thing to do, as I pointed out to her during cross-examination. The Government only charged Client with sexual assault in his bedroom and with viewing her whilst she was having sex in the living room where “she had a reasonable expectation of privacy.” They did not charge him with forcing her to put her hand on his genitals while she was having sex with another sailor. We were able to successfully show that she lied about the sexual assault allegation, and that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are having sex on a couch, in common area of a house that is inhabited by at least 9 other Sailors.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Board of Inquiry - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Retained

      U.S. Army v. Major (Board of Inquiry)

      Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

      Client received a GOMOR for having drug paraphernalia in his home and for testing positive for THC. Client is a highly motivated, highly dedicated Nurse in the Army. He had exhibited a stellar career throughout his time in the military. We were able to successfully show that Client had not taken THC for recreational purposes but for healing purposes. More importantly, we were able to successfully advocate that Client had suffered from a sever mental break from reality causing him to make ill-advised decisions leading to his General Officer Reprimand. Lastly we were able to show that he met all the appropriate criteria for the limited use program and that even if the board voted to separate, the worst discharge he could receive was an Honorable Discharge. The board recognized this Soldier for who he was. The board recognized that this Soldier had made a mistake, not entirely of his own making. The board retained him. This Soldier had a stellar career, and the full support of his immediate chain of command. We were able to successfully advocate that he had worth the US Army and was a contributor that the Army could not do without.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Domestic Violence - General Military Crimes No Charges

      US Army v. E-7 (Article 128, Domestic Violence)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Client was days away from retiring from the Army. He had a significant VA rating.

      Client and Client’s wife had an argument that caught the attention of the Military Police. The unit and unit trial counsel took the case very seriously. Client also took it seriously and brought Mr. Jordan’s team on board. Mr. Jordan and his team interviewed the wife, and effectively negotiated with the chain of command and prosecutors to allow this individual to retire with no charges.

      Result: Charges were not Preferred against Client. Investigation closed in favor of the Client. Client was allowed to Retire with Dignity.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Case Dismissed

      US Air Force v. E-6 (Article 15) (Sexual Assault, Hazing)

      Ramstein AFB, Germany

      Client was an EOD technician accused of sexually assaulting, and hazing a new member of the EOD team. In the Air Force EOD units, there is a tradition called the “EOD Kiss” were individuals are welcomed into the unit by kissing each other in order to show the ultimate trust between its members. It is not a requirement. It is not hazing. However, the alleged victim in this case felt pressured and forced to do so on one particular evening while out with the EOD team. Witness reports did not corroborate his claim. In fact, a careful study of the alleged victims activities showed that he had no problem giving kisses in the days that followed this event. The real motivation for the claim was the fact that the alleged victim was a substandard performer and wanted out of the unit. He got his wish. Client’s Article 15 was dismissed.

      Result: Article 15 dismissed. Letter of Concern issued (this does not go in Client’s permanent file.)

      Case Number: N/A

    • Rape - Military Sexual Assault Charges Dropped

      United States Marine Corps v. E-6 (Article 120, Rape)

      Camp Lejune, North Carolina

      The Client was accused of Rape by his soon to be ex-wife. In this case Mr. Jordan aggressively and proactively put pressure on government counsel and NCIS to close this case as quickly as possible because Mr. Jordan’s team was confident of the lack of evidence coupled with the obvious motive to lie would make it very difficult to prefer charges against the Client. NCIS could not find corroborating evidence. In fact with the help of the defense team, NCIS and the chain of command noted that the evidence supported a conclusion that the alleged victim had lied and made these allegations up.

      Result: Charges were not Preferred against Client. Investigation closed in favor of the Client

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Charges Dropped

      US Army v. E-6 (Article 120, Article 134) (Sexual Assault)

      Fort Huachuca, Arizona

      Client was accused sexually assaulting his wife. We carefully conducted our own defense investigation into the hard evidence we could provide in defense of our client such as text messages and emails. The defense team worked closely with Client’s company commander to resolve this case in favor of Client

      Result: Charges were not Preferred against Client. Investigation closed in favor of the Client.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Referred 15-6 Investigation - Adverse Military Administrative Actions No Charges

      US v. 0-5 – US Army Recruiting Command (Referred 15-6 Investigation)

      Houston, TX - July 2017

      Client received a referred 15-6 investigation report. This referred report was given in spite of the fact that the investigation officer had opined there was no substantiation to any of the claims made against our client. He was forced to respond to allegations of equal opportunity violations, discrimination and failure to follow a superior officer’s orders. Our client was the commander of a recruiting battalion at the time. He had a very troubled executive officer (XO). His XO was going through some significant family issues and our client thought it best that he be removed from the position in order for the XO to better handle his personal issues. The XO took issue with this and filed a number of unsubstantiated complaints against our client. Further, during the midst of all of this, our client’s commander was replaced by a new commander who gave unclear and ambiguous advice. This unclear and ambiguous advice was the basis for an unsubstantiated claim of failing to follow a superior officer’s orders. We took the time to interview all of the pertinent witnesses to this 15-6 investigation. We also interviewed the investigating officer. We obtained a statement from him where he told us he actually visited the Command in question to asses for himself. His conclusions were that while our client was a hardnosed Commander with high standards, there was no misconduct and that the Command was extremely well run. We provided a personal statement and an in depth legal review on behalf of our client and the Commanding General threw out the investigation.

      Case Number: N/A

    • 15-6 Command Directed Investigation - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Resolved

      United States Army v. O-6 (15-6 Command Directed Investigation)

      Fort Jackson, South Carolina

      Client was asked to respond to Investigating Officers findings that the Client had an unhealthy command climate, unfair treatment of subordinates, and retaliation of the chain of command. The findings were seemingly detailed and were 6 pages long. Mr. Jordan carefully considered all of the factors that lead to the investigating officers findings. Mr. Jordan and his team thoroughly and expertly picked apart the findings of this investigation. Mr. Jordan’s team drafted a 13 page response, a legal review, and provided 45 attachments detailing and supporting the conclusions that drastically opposed the Investigating Officers findings. The investigating officer was sloppy. He picked and chose what was important without any proper analysis. It was also apparent that race played an unfortunate role in this case. The officers complaining about the Client were white. Client is African American. Obvious contradictions were not explored or even considered by the investigating officer.

      Result: The Investigation was thrown out.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Rape and Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      US Army v. 02 (Spousal Rape, Domestic Violence, Child Endangerment)

      Fort Wainwright, Alaska

      Client was charged with a long list and variety of sexual assaults and rape (Article 120, UCMJ), domestic violence (Article 128, UCMJ) and child endangerment (Article 134, UCMJ). Specifically he was charged with two specifications of Rape, which carry life sentences. He was charged with two specifications of abusive sexual contact, one specification of sexual assault, 8 specifications of simple assault, one specification of aggravated assault and four specifications of child endangerment. A thorough and detailed examination into the background in this case showed the alleged victim had significant mental health issues that predated the relationship in question. Additionally, a careful review of her mental and medical health history revealed that she never reported sexual assault, even as she alleged it was happening. The defense team scoured over 3500 pages of documents. The defense team also procured one of the best forensic psychologists to help asses the evidence, and provide meaningful consultation concerning the governments expert. In short, Mr. Jordan was able to thoroughly discredit and disarm the alleged victim’s story. Lastly, the governments last ditch effort to explain the alleged victims erratic behavior through the testimony of an government expert was thwarted through Mr. Jordan’s thorough and efficient cross examination.

      Result: Not Guilty of all Sexual Assault and Rape Charges. Not Guilty of all Child Endangerment Charges. Guilty of only 3 of the 9 specifications of assault.

      Sentence can be provided upon request.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Charges Dropped

      United States Coast Guard v. 01 (Article 120, Sexual Assault)

      US Coast Guard Operations Systems Center, Martinsville, West Virginia

      Client was investigated for Article 120 violations of the UCMJ, Sexual Assault. Client was a 14-year veteran of the Coast Guard who had just become an officer when the investigation kicked off. While attending military school, the client was accused of sexual assaulting a civilian woman. Over the course of the investigation it was confirmed that the alleged victim in this case was lying about her allegations. Through Mr. Jordan’s careful consultation and approach to the investigation, the case against this 14 year veteran of the Coast Guard was dropped.

      Result: Charges were not Preferred against Client. Investigation closed in favor of the Client

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Closed

      S Army v. E-5 (Article 120, Sexual Assault, Article 120c Indecent Viewing and Video Recording)

      Fort Gordon, Georgia

      Client had just arrived at his new duty station at Fort Gordon Georgia. Not long after arriving, an investigation was opened into an alleged sexual assault and indecent viewing and recording of an alleged victim while stationed at Schofield Barrack’s Hawaii. The alleged victim was the Client’s fiancé. Her original claim was forced sexual acts in a taxicab whilst filming. This case highlights and illustrates the need to have flexible approaches to representation during the investigative stage of a criminal case. In this case, Mr. Jordan chose to be hyper aggressive. Mr. Jordan and his team went out and interviewed witnesses, pressured the government on its lack of evidence and finally prepped and allowed Client to provide a statement via polygraph. One of Mr. Jordan’s stellar paralegals was present for the whole interrogation. Client passed with flying colors. The polygraph plus Mr. Jordan’s aggressive approach to witness interviews during the investigation stage resulted in a no probable cause finding in favor of the Client.

      Result: Charges were not Preferred against Client. Investigation closed in favor of the Client

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Case Dismissed

      U.S. Army v. E6 (Sexual Assault, Abusive Sexual Contact)

      Fort Bliss, Texas – May 2017

      Client was charged with Article 120, sexual assault. He was specifically charged with allegedly sexually assaulting a fellow Soldier within his unit while on a pre-deployment train up at Fort Bliss. Client is a Reservist who was mobilized along with his unit to deploy to the Middle East. The unit was given a holiday pass during the 4th of July weekend. Many of the Soldiers opted to stay in the Fort Bliss, El Paso area for the holiday, including our Client. The complaining witness in this case was married. On the evening in question she had sex at least twice with another Soldier who will be referred to as SPC S. C. After the second sexual encounter, our client stopped by the room looking for some items he had lost. SPC S. C. reportedly had to leave to deal with an issue back on Fort Bliss. Our client apparently stayed in the room for some time and then left.

      The complaining witness in this case wrote out several statements alleging that our client sexually assaulted her for over 30 minutes. She reports that our client’s penis was inside of her vagina for over 30 minutes. She reports texting SPC S.C. that she needed help. SPC S.C. shows up at the hotel shortly after she texted him. SPC S.C. took the complaining witness directly to the hospital. A sexual assault examination was conducted shortly after her arrival at the hospital. DNA was collected from the complaining witness during this examination. At a later date, a sexual assault examination was conducted on our client and DNA was also collected during this examination.

      The DNA taken from both the complaining witness and our client tells a very important story. First it is important to note that the DNA was collected from all over the complaining witnesses body to include inside her vagina and outside her vagina. The collection takes place within a few hours of the alleged sexual assault she claims took place for over 30 minutes. The complaining witness was taken to the hospital within minutes after she claims she was sexually assaulted. The DNA quite simply tells a different story. The DNA analysis specifically EXCLUDES our client’s DNA profile from being inside her vagina. Our client’s non-semen DNA profile was only noted on her pubic mound. The DNA analysis also shows that there is an unknown contributor to semen DNA inside the complaining witness’s vagina.

      The statements gathered in this case show that the alleged victim and SPC S.C. had sexual relations with each other prior to the alleged sexual assault. The statements in this case also show that shortly after the alleged victim and SPC S.C. had sex with each other our client had stopped by the hotel room looking for some items. What is of particular importance here is that the alleged victim was a married woman at the time she was having sexual intercourse with SPC S.C..

      As the evidence in this case developed, the we learned that the alleged victim had been an exotic dancer in her civilian life. Additionally, the defense learned from specific witnesses that the alleged victim had given lap dances to members of her unit.

      The DNA did not support the story of sexual assault as told by the complaining witness in this case. However, the DNA does support a story where the alleged victim participated and willingly gave a lap dance to our client in this case. It is the only logical explanation of how our clients non-semen DNA ended up on her pubic mound and not inside her vagina. It is the only logical explanation for how our client’s DNA was specifically excluded from being inside the complaining witness’s vagina. As for her motivations to claim sexual assault, the only logical and plausible explanation is the plan and clear fact that our client basically caught the alleged victim engaging in an inappropriate relationship with another member of the unit.

      The alleged victim in this case opted to withdraw from the participating in the case all together merely a week out from the docketed trial date. This forced the Military Prosecutors to withdraw the charges against our Client. Instead, they opted to give our Client a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR). First, we filed a personal statement with appropriate attachments and over 30 character letters in support of our client. We also filed another 15 character for untruthfulness affidavits on the alleged victim. These affidavits both for the defense and against the alleged victim were all gathered by our legal team from members of the Client’s unit. Lastly, we filed a legal review including much of the evidence mentioned above. In sum, the GOMOR was filed locally and our client was exonerated.

      Result: Case Dismissed 1 week before trial. GOMOR filed locally. This 20 yr NCO was able to move on with his Army Reserve Career.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Full Acquittal

      Fort Carson, Colorado - August 2017

      Client was charged with Article 120, Article 120b, Article 128 and Article 134 under the UCMJ. Client was specifically charged with several varieties of sexual abuse of a minor, assaulting several minors and obstruction of justice. The alleged victim was our Client’s biological daughter. In the fall of 2015, after getting in severe trouble for misconduct at school, the alleged victim was asked by medical professionals if she had been sexually abused. She stated that she had. One day later she recanted the allegation. The allegation was never recorded formally. However, the defense discovered that she had written several journal entries on how she made all of the allegations up. The defense also discovered several witnesses who provided information and testimony that she was telling multiple inconsistent stories about what allegedly happened. A year later, after getting in severe trouble for misconduct at school and at home, the alleged victim again alleged sexual assault against our client. He was subsequently charged. The case itself was delayed because the Government Counsel failed to provide vital defense witnesses for trial. Once the trial actually occurred, the alleged victim told yet a different story at trial. In sum, the alleged victim was confronted with all of the lies she had spoken and written. Further, we were able to contact and secure the testimony of 4 different maternal figures in the alleged victim’s life as she grew up. They all testified that she was a liar and a manipulator. During the trial, we successfully cross examined the Government expert on the issue of recantations. Specifically, we were able to secure testimony from the government witness that 90% of original recantations are actually true. Over the course of the trial, the Government failed to put on evidence for three different charges and specifications. The Judge granted our motions for findings of not guilty as a matter of law on one of the sexual assault charges, one of the assault charges and one of the obstruction charges. The military panel found our client not guilty of the remaining charges and specifications.

      Case Number: N/A

    • Larceny - General Military Crimes Full Acquittal

      U.S. Coast Guard v. E-7 (LARCENY)

      Mayport Naval Station, Florida

      The Coast Guard accused Mr. Jordan's Client of stealing and wrongfully appropriating over $12,000 worth of specialized Coast Guard equipment.

      Coast Guard approached this case with the mindset of securing a conviction. The Coast Guard ensured that the Command Master Chief for the convening authority in this case was on the client's Courts-Martial panel. Additionally, several Chief's and Chief Petty Officers working directly under the Command Master Chief were included on the total panel of 10. Lastly, several officers, who were rated by the convening authority, were included on the panel. Thru skillful questioning, Mr. Jordan successfully brought the panel down from 10 to 3 panel members.

      The Coast Guard opted to prosecute this case instead of taking a look at the unit's internal property accountability procedures. None of the property Client allegedly stole was accurately reflected on the books. But that is not the whole story.

      Client is a highly skilled, 20-year veteran of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, his skills rubbed his superiors the wrong way. When he PCS'd, he left in a hurry. As he arrived to his next duty station he found out there was an investigation into missing equipment at his previous unit. The unit did not call him to inform him. He found out from a friend. So, in order to help, the Client immediately called his previous Command and left a message. No one answered and no one called back. Instead, the Command called the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS).

      CGIS was only interested in investigating Mr. Jordan's Client and failed to properly investigate for evidence that would exonerate the Client. The fact that the equipment was found and returned to the unit was of no consequence to CGIS, the Coast Guard or the Government as those agencies' only interest was to find the Client guilty - With or Without proper evidence!

      Result: Full Acquittal! This was achieved through skillful cross-examination of property accountability officer, and members of Client's previous command whose only concern was to attempt to ruin Mr. Jordan's Client career out of incompetence and jealousy.

      Case Number: 201

    • Rape and Aggravated Assault - Military Sexual Assault Deal, Charges Dropped

      U.S. Navy V. E-6, (Article 120, Article 128 Rape And Aggravated Assault)

      NAS Bahrain

      The Charges in this case included charges of False Official Statement, two specifications of Aggravated Sexual Assault, three specifications of Aggravated Assault, Communication of a Threat and Adultery. This was Mr. Jordan's second major successful Defense of an alleged Sex Crime in Bahrain. From the very beginning, it appeared that there were severe credibility issues with the alleged victim in this case. The alleged victim was a third country national from France who had tutored several of the NCIS agents involved in the investigation on French. NCIS was not interested in the credibility of the witness or her story because they felt they knew her enough already so they blindly pushed the investigation forward. NCIS went as far as to wire tap and record the Client's phone conversation with the alleged victim. As Mr. Jordan listened to the recording, it became very clear that NCIS was coaching the alleged victim on exactly what to say. A thorough and complete examination of her phone records, email records showed that she had a history of manipulating the truth. The Defense review of the aforementioned records turned up several petitions of abandonment filed by the alleged victim against her alleged husband for abandonment, adultery, financial fraud, deceit upon the marriage and threats to murder. When questioned about these allegations, the alleged victim said no. The Defense review of the alleged victims records turned up numerous petitions filed by her in the country of Burkina Faso. At least 6 petitions were filed against 5 different individuals. One of the petitions was filed for rape. None of the filed petitions had been acted on favorably towards the alleged victim. During the Article 32 hearing, the Defense concentrated solely on the alleged victims credibility. There were numerous other issues that cropped up regarding her story. Thorough pretrial investigation and preparation for the Article 32 won the day for the client.

      Result: Rape Charges Dropped! Aggravated Assault Charges Dropped. False Official Statement and Communication of a Threat Charges Dropped. The client accepted a deal for Summary Courts Martial on Adultery and simple battery, with a condition that there would be no Administrative Separation.

      Case Number: 504

    • Cruelty and Maltreatment - General Military Crimes Sentence Reduction

      US Army v. E-7 (Article 93 Cruelty and Maltreatment to Subordinates)

      Fort Wainwright, Alaska

      Client accused of verbally abusing a lower enlisted individual. Unfortunately the individual committed suicide for unknown reasons. Client was charged with 6 specifications of Article 93. Client had served almost 20 years, deployed multiple times as a 11B and served as a drill sergeant for 3 years.

      Result: Guilty. The judge condensed all 6 specifications into one charge. He cut the language that client was not guilty of.

      Sentence: Reduction to E-5. NO CONFINEMENT! NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE!

      Case Number: 203

    • Unprofessional Relationship - General Military Crimes No Punitive Action

      US Air Force vs. E8 (Article 92, Unprofessional Relationship)

      Tucson, Arizona

      Client was accused of an unprofessional relationship with a Airman of a lower rank.

      Result: Client plead guilty at a Summary Courts Martial, no punitive action taken. No Federal Felony Conviction.

      Case Number: 213

    • Larceny - General Military Crimes No Charges

      US Army v. E-6 (Article 121, Larceny; Article 108)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Client came under investigation for larceny of medical supplies. Unfortunately the evidence was not working out in his favor. Rather than go to Courts Martial and risk a Federal Conviction, client opted to take a deal in which he was administratively separated from the Army.

      Result: No Charges Brought in favor of Administrative Separation. NO FEDERAL CONVICTION

      Case Number: 212

    • GOMOR - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Resumed Command

      U.S. Army v. CPT (GOMOR)

      Hawaii

      Our client received the following simultaneously: 1) Results of the AR 15-6 Investigation; 2) Notice of intent for Relief for Cause OER; and 3) a GOMOR. This officer knew he had to protect his future career in the U.S. Army and obtained our services. He was accused of knowingly having a relationship with a female officer that was married. However, this was not the case. During their short relationship the female officer lied and deceived our client into believing she was single. He was not confronted with this information that she was married until after her divorce was finalized. In our clients response, Mr. Jordan illustrated in a very articulated manner to the commanding general why and how our client did not knowingly have a relationship with a married woman.

      Result: The commanding general filed his GOMOR in his local file, he resumed command and was not issued a relief for cause OER.

      Case Number: 315

    • GOMOR - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Continued Career

      U.S. Army v. CW3 (GOMOR)

      Afghanistan/Fort Belvoir

      After being informed she was under investigation for falsifying her flight records this pilot contacted us immediately to protect and defend her career. This mere oversight was discovered by her most recent command, of whom accused her of falsifying or altering her records, and did no further investigation into the matter. She was then issued a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand for falsifying/altering her flight records. Mr. Jordan revealed that not only was our client not guilty of the accusation, but also revealed that the AR 15-6 investigation was extremely poorly done.

      Result: The GOMOR was locally filed, and she was able to continue her career as an Army pilot.

      Case Number: 314

    • Drug Distribution - General Military Crimes Full Acquittal

      US Army vs. E1 (Article 112a, Drug Distribution)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      This Client was originally charged with a host of charges to include Obstruction of Justice, False Official Statement, Conspiracy to Distribute controlled substances and several specifications of drug distribution. Mr. Jordan filed a motion to suppress a certain statement that the government gathered from Mr. Jordan's Client. Mr. Jordan won his motion to suppress the statement in question because the Government failed to properly notify his client of his rights when they initially questioned him. Mr. Jordan carefully laid out the time line of events surrounding the taking of this statement. The timeline of events was key in unraveling the Governments intent behind taking the statement in the first place. Mr. Jordan's thorough investigation behind the Government's actions enabled him win his motion to suppress on behalf of his client, successfully wiping away half of the charge sheet his client was facing. Not to be outdone, the Government attempted to file an Article 62 interlocutory appeal to challenge the Judge's ruling. About three weeks later, the Government withdrew their Article 62 appeal. All charges dealing with obstruction of justice and false official statement were effectively withdrawn and dismissed. Now, all that Mr. Jordan's team had to contend with was the conspiracy and the drug distribution charges.

      Once again, the time line of alleged events was crucial to the outcome of this case. Mr. Jordan and his team carefully pieced together the timeline of events surrounding the alleged time when the Client supposedly dealt controlled substances, by examining the call logs and full text message logs. This examination of the evidence by the Defense team led to careful planning of the examination and cross-examination of all witnesses involved.

      The Government's chief witness was a convicted felon who had already served about a year in prison. In fact, this was the Government's only witness to any alleged drug dealing conducted. Mr. Jordan effectively exposed the Government's chief witness to be a bold-faced liar during his cross-examination. The Government's chief witness had testified in his own case. He had given several recorded statements. Mr. Jordan even had access to several prison call's he made to other witnesses. Mr. Jordan had plenty to work with in order to effectively cross-examine him.

      The Government also relied heavily on two text messages. Only two text messages were exchanged between the Government's witness and Mr. Jordan's client and they did not directly reference any conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. There were plenty of messages between the Government's chief witness and other people detailing the sell of controlled substance, but none of those texts referenced Mr. Jordan's client. The text messages that the Government so heavily relied on were turned against them. In the end, Mr. Jordan summed the whole case up in a stunning closing argument.

      Case Number: 200

    • Article 15 - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Loss of One Stripe

      U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 15)

      Fort Drum, NY

      After receiving his initial Article 15 reading and attempting to complete his rebuttal on his own, our client contacted and hired us. This NCO was charged with wrongful use of marijuana. Up front this case does not seem easy to rebut; however, our client had some meditating factors. When the SGT had went home for leave he visited a friend. The friend had made brownies laced with marijuana unknowingly to our client. Our client consumed the brownies and later came up positive for a company wide urinalysis. Mr. Jordan consulted with our toxicologist that reviewed, confirmed, and wrote a letter in support of our clients statement. This toxicologist letter, with our clients sincere apology, our legal statement to the commander, and character letters were submitted to the Field Grade Officer at his second Article 15 reading.

      U.S. Army v. SSG (Article 15)

      Result: This SGT lost one stripe; however, was not issued extra duty, restriction forfeiture of pay, or recommended for administrative separation. Things could have been a lot worse for the NCO, but he was able to remain in the Army and the ability to earn his stripes back.

      Case Number: 310

    • Article 81, 132, and 134 - General Military Crimes Not Guilty

      U.S. Air Force v. E-7 (Article 81, Article 132, Article 134) Conspiracy, Making False Claims Against the Government, Obstruction

      Edwards AFB, California

      My client is a Test Parachutist for the Air Force. He happens to be one of the most experienced test parachutists in the military. He was accused of conspiracy to commit fraud against the Government, making false claims against the government, obstruction of justice and wrongful receipt of government funds. At the time I was brought on as counsel, my client was pulled off of terminal leave. The Government proceeded to investigate the case for 11 months before they charged my client with a crime. My client wisely heeded my advice and did not talk with investigators. In short, my client was accused of overbilling the government for services not rendered through a contract vendor known as Sky Dive Elsinore. Sky Dive Elsinore provided lift and jump services to the Test Parachutists at Edwards AFB.

      As the months passed by during the investigation, it became clear that I would need a very meticulous right hand man to assist in this case. I had my client put in an individual military counsel request for Capt Robert Crayne aka "Brad". Brad and I had attended law school together and I new he would be a perfect fit for my clients Defense team.

      In October of 2012, I decided to file a Discovery Request to see what exactly the Government had on my client. They were under no obligation to answer this request, however they did drop some information on me anyway. In November my client was charged and the Article 32 investigation was scheduled for early January of 2013.

      Brad and I flew out to Edwards AFB about 5 days prior to the Article 32 to conduct our own investigation. We had an opportunity to review the files prior to coming to Edwards AFB, however there were more than a few witnesses that we needed to discuss. Brad and I traveled down to Sky Dive Elsinore and interviewed 3 very important witnesses in our case. We then toured the facilities of Sky Dive Elsinore in order to get a feel for how things operated for the Air Force Parachutists.

      Over the next few days leading up to the Article 32 Brad and I conducted over 30 witness interviews in order to get down to the bottom of what was really happening. We interviewed the key players in program management, unit leadership and contracting to figure out where the disconnect was. We also learned that the OSI agents did not take the time to learn about the contracts involved. OSI did not take the time to learn about my client's job and requirements as a test parachutist. OSI also failed to learn the different parts of a parachute and what would be required to do jumps. OSI failed to learn all of the different equipment requirements for a test parachutist. For example, OSI thought a CYPRES device was an altimeter. A CYPRES Device is a parachute release system that activates automatically at a certain altitude if for get to pull your Shute. It became very clear that the Government had no clue as to what was really going on in this case. Brad and I went more than the extra mile to understand every aspect of this case so that we could properly defend our client.

      The Article 32 in this case was treated as most Article 32's in the military, and this one turned out to be just another rubber stamp. However, what we did learn was that my client's previous commander was caught on an OSI interrogation video talking to one of the other alleged co-conspirators in this case. It was not the act of talking that was the issue. What was at issue was what the commander said to the co-conspirator. The Commander basically conveniently pointed the virtual finger at my client!

      At trial we expertly explained to the panel what was going on with the contracts. We pointed out that everything my client was doing was actually authorized. Brad and I did the research and found the paperwork that authorized the alleged overbilling. We also took the time to expose how the Government failed in their duties to properly instruct the Test Parachutists, and Sky Dive Elsinore on how the contracting for the services should be properly handled. Lastly, in my closing argument, I used all of the Government's evidence against them. The Government had put up a slide show documenting the invoices they use to come up with the calculations that they made to determine exactly how much my client alleged made false claims for. The Government did not look at their evidence close enough because I was able to point out an authorization on every invoice they brought forward. The Government failed to properly investigate this case thoroughly and if they had investigated it properly no charges would have been brought in the first place.

      Result: NOT GUILTY of Article 81, Article 132 and 1 Specification of Article 134. Specifically Mr. Jordan's client was acquitted of Conspiracy, making false claims and wrongful receipt of government funds. He was found guilty of obstruction of justice

      Sentence: Reprimand and reduction in grade one rank.

      NO PUNITIVE DISCHARGE! RETIREMENT SAVED!

      Case Number: 202

    • Letter of Reprimand - Adverse Military Administrative Actions No Negative Impact

      U.S. Army v. SFC (Letter of Reprimand)

      Fort Leonard Wood, MO

      Our client was a drill sergeant at this training installation and allegedly hit a Soldier in training on the head. This seasoned non-commissioned officer knew he must protect his career, family and name. There were no sworn statements taken from any of the Soldiers in training nor the drill sergeants, it was a very informal commander's inquiry that led to the letter of reprimand. Shortly after being issued his battalion level letter of reprimand, he hired our office to assist with his rebuttal. With Mr. Jordan's assistance he was able to apologize for his actions, explain that the allegation was simply done to get the attention of a Soldier before committing a immense safety violation, and was not as dramatic as the Soldier in training portrayed it to be. The battalion commander directed that the letter of reprimand be filed in his local file, and there was no negative impact on his later NCOER.

      Result: The battalion commander directed that the letter of reprimand be filed in his local file, and there was no negative impact on his later NCOER.

      Case Number: 311

    • Article 15 - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Reduction

      U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 15)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Our client contacted us after he had been giving his first reading for an Article 15. After our initial consultation, he hired us and we began diligently working on his case. Our client was charged with failure to report to duty and failure to obey a lawful order. There were some underlying circumstances that needed to be addressed to the Field Grade officer who was holding the Article 15 hearing.

      The NCO had been accounted for as AWOL prior to the initial reading of his Article 15; therefore, the "second" failure to report to duty was taken to the chain of command for non-punitive action. This "AWOL" was not and should have never been defined as an AWOL. The NCO was in-processing the unit and had not met his new supervisor or had been given any information as to his place of duty. He believed his place of duty was to in-process and to take care of the administrative and housing items he needed to.

      The NCO was abruptly informed that he had been accounted as AWOL and he needed to obtain some 4187s and sign some re-enlistment documentation stating that he had been AWOL. The NCO not wanting to make a big deal out of the matter did so as told. He then began reporting to his appointed place of duty until the "second" failure. The NCO's "second" failure was his on wrongdoing and openly admitted it; however, this should have been his first, one, and only mess up throughout his time at his new unit and his entire Army career for that matter.

      At the second reading, the NCO was prepared with a well written rebuttal statement from our office detailing the events that led the NCO to the Article 15. The Field Grade officer agreed with the NCO, found him guilty of the failure to report to duty and dismissed the charge of failure to obey a lawful order due to semantics.

      Due to financial hardship that the AWOL had caused on the NCO, the Field Grade officer issued the following punishment: Reduction to E4, suspended for 180 days; Forfeiture of half month's pay for two months, suspended for 180 days; and extra duty for 30 days. Since the Article 15 closing the NCO has not had any of his punishment vacated, successfully completed his extra duty, and is looking forward to honorably leaving the service to pursue other dreams. Currently he still retains his rank as an E-5.

      Case Number: 309

    • GOMOR Rebuttal - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Filed Locally

      US Army v. CPT (GOMOR Rebuttal)

      Hawaii

      Client hired Mr. Jordan to assist her with a General Officer Memorandum of Record. She was wrongfully accused of being involved in an inappropriate relationship. She was also wrongfully accused of making a false official statement. Mr. Jordan thoroughly reviewed the 15-6 investigation that was being used as evidence against the Client. Mr. Jordan carefully crafted a rebuttal that addressed every deficiency in the investigation, and its findings. Ultimately, Mr. Jordan was able to show that this Officer should not suffer an unfavorable action in her file with such a huge lack of evidence.

      Result: The GOMOR was filed locally. When this CPT PCS's, then the GOMOR will be shredded. It has no effect on the officer's permanent file.

      Case Number: 317

    • Administrative Separation Board - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Honorable Discharge

      US v. E-4 (Administrative Separation Board for patterns of misconduct)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Client was originally an E-5 but was reduced for very minor misconduct. She had missed a change of command rehearsal, and her uniform was not in order for an inspection on two different occasions. After missing a couple of medical appointments, the unit decided to initiate separation paperwork. Client was about to ETS shortly after the schedule board date. The Board realized two things. The client was leaving the Army shortly, and that her service was honorable. The board by their decision also realized that the unit was being extremely petty by their treatment of this Soldier.

      Result: Honorable Discharge. Client's benefits were retained, additionally client received her separation pay.

      Case Number: 306

    • Rape - Military Sexual Assault Acquitted

      U.S. Air force V. E-5, (Article 120, Rape)

      Lackland AFB

      Client was charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault. This charge carried 30 years confinement, plus the sex offender registration. There will be more to follow on this case result.

      Case Number: 508

    • Line of Duty Investigation - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Successful Verdict

      U.S. Army v. E-4 (Line of Duty Investigation)

      Fort Sam Houston, Texas

      Client was notified that the recommendation was going to be that he would be found not in the line of duty for an incident that took his leg. One evening, Client was suddenly awakened by a sound outside his door. He went to his closet, grabbed a shot gun and went to check out the noise. He leaned his shot gun on a kitchen wall behind him and walked to the kitchen window to look out the door. As he was looking out the window, the shot gun fell to the ground and discharged its 12 gauge round into one of his legs. He was eventually treated…and as part of the treatment, the doctors made the assessment that they needed to cut his leg off.

      The only evidence provided to the client was the following: pictures taken by the responding police, a police report, the DA 2173, a memorandum of record and the notification of adverse finding. The DA 2173 specifically noted that the medical opinion in this case was that this incident occurred in the line of duty. What is interesting is that the investigator in this case failed to follow the appropriate regulations in conducting his review. AR 600-8-4 paragraph 3-3a states "[a]ll findings of fact should be supported by exhibits. Copies of military or civilian police accident reports, pertinent hospitalization or clinical records…shall be attached as exhibits when appropriate".

      In this case the investigating officer made numerous conclusory statements that were not supported by the evidence. He failed to follow the regulatory guidance. The investigating officer made a number of ludicrous assumptions that he was ill qualified to make. Additionally, the conclusions he came to lacked evidence, medical reports, and a forensic analysis of the scene of the shooting. In this case the evidence pointed to a different conclusion then the investigating officer wanted to make, so he omitted it, and did not follow this case to its logical conclusion.

      The determination of the investigating officer must be supported by substantial evidence. This investigation severely lacked in substantial evidence for a finding of not in the line of duty.

      Additionally this investigation lacked a specific articulation as to why the finding was not in the line of duty due to misconduct. AR 600-8-4 paragraph 7 provides that "[t]o arrive at such decisions, the rules in appendix B will be fully considered." No such analysis occurred in this case. It is unclear what the IO's decision is based on. The Commanding General agreed and made a determination that based on the facts provided to him, coupled with my analysis, that my Client will be found In The Line of Duty!

      RESULT: Injury occurred IN THE LINE OF DUTY

      Case Number: 308

    • NCIS Investigation - Military Sexual Assault Not Enough Evidence

      U.S. Navy v. E6 (NCIS Investigation)

      Our client was accused of raping another male Sailor of whom he didn't not even remember. The complaining witnessed claimed to have attended the same training as our client when the alleged rape happened. Prior to being investigated by NCIS, our client received a call from an unknown number when he answered the call it was the complaining witness, to which our client didn't know or remember the complaining witness. The complaining witness then stated to our client, "Do you remember me? You are the guy who raped me in training." Our client remained innocent from the beginning. Shortly after this pre-text phone call, our client was called into NCIS for questioning. Prior to becoming our client, he issued NCIS a statement and NCIS suggested that our client give a polygraph. Our client then retained our services and NCIS was not given a polygraph by our client.

      Result: Months later of "investigating" it was determined there was not enough evidence for Navy personnel to prosecute.

      Case Number: 515

    • Sexual Assault and Assault - Military Sexual Assault Acquittal

      US Air Force v. E-6 (Article 120 Sexual assault, Article 128 Assault)

      Peterson AFB, Colorado

      This Airman was under investigation for assaulting and sexually assaulting a fellow airman. The allegations turned to be fabricated and false.

      Result: The case was dropped before charges were even brought.

      Case Number: 514

    • Sexual Assault of a Minor - Military Sexual Assault Case Dropped

      US Army v. CW2 (Article 120, Sexual Assault of a Minor)

      Fort Hood, Texas

      Client came under investigation for sexual assault of a child based off of ex-wife's claim. In this case, after conducting a thorough preliminary investigation, The Jordan UCMJ Law Group was confident in the innocence of this client. Normally we advise the clients do not subject themselves to interrogation by an investigative agency. In this case, Mr. Jordan, independently and thoroughly investigated this case. Then, he attended the interrogation personally with the client. As it turned out the claim was wholly and patently false.

      Result: The case was dropped before charges were even brought.

      Case Number: 513

    • Sex Assault Charges - Military Sexual Assault Charges Dropped

      US Marines v. Warrant Officer, (Article 120, Sex Assault Charges)

      Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

      Client called Mr. Jordan seeking a defense lawyer to represent him against sexual assault charges. The Client attended party one evening. The party included lots of drinking and mingling with other service members as well as local's. A local girl accused the Client of sexual assault. Her story was vague, and it was not able to be adequately corroborated. Out of all the people at the party, not one individual was able to corroborate or substantiate this girls story. Lastly, there was no forensic data to tie the Client to the alleged victim in this case. The Client followed Mr. Jordan's instructions and received the best result possible.

      Case Number: 512

    • Forcible Rape - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      US Air Force V. E-4, (Article 120, Forcible Rape And Wrongful Sexual Contact)

      There were two accusers in this case making it one of the most difficult cases Mr. Jordan has ever tried. The Charges on the Charge Sheet were Forcible Rape of one alleged victim and Wrongful Sexual Contact of another alleged victim as well as unlawful entrance into her dorm room. Mr. Jordan's client was facing Life sentence plus 31.5 years. The extra 30 years comes from the Lesser Included Offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault. In this case, the lesser-included offense of aggravated sexual assault automatically attached to the larger charge of Forcible Rape.

      Result: Forcible Rape: Not Guilty; Wrongful Sexual Contact: Not Guilty; Unlawful Entry, Not Guilty.

      The Lesser Included Offense of Aggravated Sexual Assault, Guilty.

      Sentence: 6 Months, reduction to E-1 and a Bad Conduct Discharge. The Government in this case requested 10 years of confinement, but Mr. Jordan's client only received 6 months. With good conduct he should be out in 5 months.

      Case Number: 511

    • Larceny, BAH Fraud - General Military Crimes Dropped Case

      U.S. Army v. SGT (Article 121, Larceny, BAH Fraud)

      Fort Bragg, NC

      This non-commissioned officer had been in the service for almost five years, and was notified by CID that he was under investigation for BAH Fraud. Since he had been in the service for almost a handful of years he knew the rules and regulations as it pertains to BAH and never attempted to break them. When the SGT PCS'ed from Germany, his ex-wife moved to another state, he continued on with his career at his new duty station and began a new relationship. Since he was an E5 he was allowed to live off the installation with a non-dependent rate, which is what he was given. CID was issued a tip (by his ex-wife) that he was committing BAH Fraud. The SGT contacted our office and after consulting with us, he hired us, and we informed him not to speak with CID or anyone in his chain of command regarding this investigation. He complied with our directives. Our client had less than a year left on his contract. He provided us with the evidence we needed and maintained his 5 th amendment right to remain silent.

      Result: After five months of "investigating" CID finally dropped the case. Our client was able to finish out his contract and leave the service honorably. No Charges Brought!

      Case Number: 214

    • Rape - Military Sexual Assault Acquittal

      U.S. Navy V. E-4, (Rape, Article 120)

      NAS Bahrain

      Client was charged with Rape Aggravated Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Unlawful Sexual Contact False Official Statement and Adultery.

      The Navy's approach to this case was appalling. First, they brought in a veteran NCIS agent to investigate the case. He lied, deceived and tricked Mr. Jordan's client. First he told the Client that linens had been seized from the night before, indicating that DNA swabs will be taken. No linens were seized because they had already been laundered. The NCIS agent knew that before he questioned Mr. Jordan's client. Second, the NCIS agent lied about the injuries allegedly sustained by the alleged victim, specifically stating that there were "acute signs of trauma". The medical report did not reflect the NCIS agent's lies. The Agent had read the report before questioning the Client. Lastly, the NCIS agent lied the Mr. Jordan's Client about a witness to the actual event in question. A local national Bahraini had observed what had happened on the morning in question. This witness verbally told the NCIS agent that the sex between Mr. Jordan's client, and the alleged victim appeared consensual to him. However, the NCIS agent chose to tell Mr. Jordan's client that the same Bahraini had heard the alleged victim say no, indicating that the sex was not consensual! All of these deceitful lies were recorded on video. And Mr. Jordan utterly destroyed the credibility of this NCIS agent and exposed his true motives for his deceitful lies through skillful cross-examination. The NCIS Agent's only goal was to secure a confession, thru any means necessary, even if he had to lie about what an exculpatory witness actually observed. The NCIS's constant refrain was "I go where the facts lead me".

      Lastly, the Prosecutor chose to rest his case on the video taped interrogation of Mr. Jordan's client. Unfortunately, Mr. Jordan's client initially lied to investigators in an effort to protect his family from these horrendous allegations. His lie was recorded and presented in front of the panel. Then, his admission to consensual sex was presented. The Government made much of the Client's matter of fact description of what happened. There was no emotion. So, Mr. Jordan presented members of his Client's chain of command who discussed the Client's matter of fact nature.

      These are among several highlights of the case. Ultimately, in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds, Mr. Jordan was able to secure victory on behalf of his client.

      Result: NOT GUILTY of Rape, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Sexual Assault!! Guilty of Wrongful Sexual Contact, False Official Statement and Adultery.

      Sentence: NO PUNISHMENT!!

      Case Number: 510

    • Sexual Assault - Military Sexual Assault Charges Dropped

      US Navy V. E-3 JOINT BASE, (Sexual Assault, Article 120)

      San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston Texas

      Client was finishing his technical training at Joint Base San Antonio when he was accused of sexual assault. One of the Client's female instructors was the accuser and she alleged sexual assault. As the investigation progressed the Command backed down from Court Martial charges for sexual assault. The Command's next step was to read the Client for an Article 15. As the investigation progressed, the Command began to realize that the tables had actually turned. The Command realized that that the accuser was actually flirting with my Client. It was the accuser who was in the wrong and was motivated for various reasons to make a false claim. After reviewing all of the evidence that we presented to the Command, the Command ultimately dropped ALL OF THE CHARGES. It is interesting to point out that normally investigators would have enough for at least sexual harassment in a case such as this.

      Effectively showing that the alleged victims are bold face liars is often the best, and only way to success in cases of alleged sexual assault. Lastly, and most importantly, my Client listened and followed my advice without question. Accordingly, my Client achieved the best possible result in his case.

      Result: Charges Dropped, Article 15 Dropped, No Punishment! This young man gets to start his new career in the Navy!

      Case Number: 509

    • GOMOR - Adverse Military Administrative Actions Locally Filed

      U.S. Army v. 1LT (GOMOR)

      Arizona Army National Guard

      Our client contacted us immediately after receiving her GOMOR, and hired us the same day after being comforted by our knowledge of the military justice system and experience in cases similar to hers. Our client was charged with an inappropriate relationship with another officer within her unit. Mr. Jordan composed an apology from our client. Within the apology Mr. Jordan pin pointed mitigating factors that proved our client was not 100% guilty of the full accusation. The apology along with character witness statements were submitted to the chain of command for their recommendations to the commanding general for his disposition.

      Result: The GOMOR was locally filed, and she was able to continue her career.

      Case Number: 296

    • Rape - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      U.S. Army V. E-5, (Rape, Article 120)

      Fort Bliss, Texas

      Client was charged with Conspiracy to commit rape, conspiracy to commit forcible sodomy, false official statement, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, rape, and forcible sodomy. The basic allegation was that Mr. Jordan's Client and another NCO was accused of raping and sodomizing an E-3 at about 230 a.m. in the morning in the front seat of the NCO's (alleged co-conspirator's) pickup truck.

      This case had its challenges. The majority of the key witnesses, to include the alleged victim were deployed overseas. These challenges did not prohibit Mr. Jordan's team from prevailing at trial. Key facts leading to an acquittal in this case include significant delayed reporting (36 hours) by the alleged victim; sex with her boyfriend at least twice after the alleged incident; no findings were made to the sexual assault examination; and last but not least, Mr. Jordan affectively showed that the alleged victim was a liar.

      This case is a testament to why pretrial investigation by defense counsel is vital. Mr. Jordan's team learned that the alleged victim had slept with the co-conspirator on CQ duty. Due to the current state of rape shield laws, the Mr. Jordan's defense team was not permitted to introduce this evidence at trial. However, Mr. Jordan's team was able show that the alleged victim had lied twice before under oath about whether or not she had a romantic and sexual relationship with another key witness to this trial. This key witness was in fact another E-5 who was the first person the alleged victim texted after the alleged rape.

      Next Mr. Jordan's team showed that she wore 6-inch heels on the night in question. She alleged that she squirmed and kicked at the two co-conspirators. However, Mr. Jordan's team successfully showed that there were no injuries to the co-conspirators, and there were no scratches or holes to the upholstery or dashboard of the pick up truck. Mr. Jordan successfully advocated that these 6-inch heels would have left a mark!

      Next Mr. Jordan's team showed that not only her, but her boyfriend lied under oath. Her boyfriend maintained at trial that they only had sex on the Sunday before she made her outcry and submitted to a sex assault examination. In previous hearings the boyfriend stated that he had sex with the alleged victim about 5 am, a mere 3.5 hours after the alleged incident! The alleged victim always maintained that she had sex with her boyfriend on the Sunday before her outcry. However there was undisputable DNA evidence in this case that Mr. Jordan used to his advantage. The DNA evidence showed that the alleged victim did in fact have sex with her boyfriend a mere 3.5 hours after the alleged rape…and again on Sunday. The alleged victim lied! She also neglected to tell her boyfriend about the allegations until she was on her way to the sex assault examination…after the second time they had sex…over 36 hours after the alleged incident. In sum, she had sex with her boyfriend, not once but twice after she was ALLEGEDLY raped by two men.

      Scene investigation is vitally important. Through investigating the scene, Mr. Jordan learned that the alleged victim parked directly under a parking light. Second Mr. Jordan learned that the only route the alleged victim drove to and from the club took her past a Major Hospital Emergency room. Lastly, Mr. Jordan learned that the alleged victim had made it a habit to routinely visit her boyfriend at the club on the weekends, because he was the club's DJ. All of these things were brought out at trial.

      Last, but not least, Mr. Jordan skillfully cross-examined the Special Agent who took a written statement from Mr. Jordan's client. This was not the usual cross-examination involving the interrogation techniques used by investigators. In fact, Mr. Jordan endorsed the Special Agent's techniques and experience in order to get at the truth. The Government wanted to get the Client's statement into evidence in order to prove up false official statement. Mr. Jordan allowed this to happen. The statement contained key details regarding the incident showing that the alleged victim consented to sexual intercourse on the night in question. The Special Agent unwittingly stated that she felt that she figured out what happened that night. By endorsing the truthfulness of this statement, the Special Agent endorsed the Client's version of events. Mr. Jordan argued accordingly during summation and his client was acquitted of rape and forcible sodomy.

      Result:

      1. NOT GUILTY of Rape, and Forcible Sodomy
      2. Conspiracy to commit rape and forcible sodomy charges were DROPPED
      3. Guilty of false official statement and conspiracy to obstruct justice

      Sentence: NO CONFINMENT. However, he was given a bad conduct discharge. He has a previous honorable discharge, so he will retain most, if not all of his GI Bill and veterans benefits. The great thing about this case is he is not a convicted sex offender.

      Case Number: 505

    • Larceny, BAH Fraud - General Military Crimes Charges Dropped

      US Army v. E-8 (Article 121, Larceny, BAH Fraud)

      Fort Drum, New York

      This highly decorated veteran came under investigation for BAH Fraud when he submitted his travel claim tickets. CID claimed that because his weight during his DITY move was drastically more than when he first moved to the previous duty station, that he was committing fraud. CID went as far as to attempt to seize his banking documents through a subpoena. No banking documents were submitted. No statements were made. The Client held his ground, maintained his innocence.

      Result: The case was dropped before charges were even brought.

      Case Number: 211

    • Substance Abuse - General Military Crimes Acquittal

      U.S. Coast Guard v. E-5 (SUBSTANCE ABUSE)

      The Client was accused of using crack cocaine by a fellow shipmate who was being questioned by CGIS. The investigation included testing, an invasive search of his residence along with multiple repeated attempts to get a statement. Client followed Mr. Jordan's advice to the letter.

      Case Number: 205

    • Rape - Military Sexual Assault Not Guilty

      US Army V. Captain, (Rape, Article 120)

      Fort Leonard Wood Missouri

      Client was charged with the Forcible Rape and Aggravated Sexual Assault of his wife. This case was unique in several aspects. First, this was a spousal rape case. Second, this was a case that was solely investigated by civilian law enforcement. There was absolutely no military police or CID involvement whatsoever. Third, the alleged victim never called the cops. Fourth, this marriage was in its 10 month after only a 3-month courtship and engagement. Lastly, there was a 40-minute video taped confession that Client gave to law enforcement. In spite of this confession, Mr. Jordan and his team secured a verdict of NOT GUILTY!

      This case starts on a Monday morning where Client had morning sex with his wife. Unfortunately, during foreplay, he decided to use the word "rape" in his routine morning dirty talk. It was not until Monday evening that he found out that there was an issue with the language he used. Apparently the word "rape" was a trigger word for the alleged victim. She began to attack him with the language he used. The next day he wrote an apology letter to his wife specifically apologizing for the words he used. But that was not enough for his wife. The alleged victim called and notified her friend in Colorado. Her friend worked for the State of Colorado Correctional Department and was thus a mandatory reporter. The alleged victim then spent the rest of the week badgering and attacking him calling him her father and stating that he raped her.

      Her friend, the mandatory reporter, called the local police to do a health and welfare check, at around midnight on Thursday. This is 4 days after the alleged incident. Upon arrival, Client tells law enforcement, "I am going to lay it out on the line "for her"…and he proceeded to state that he forced himself on his wife. He was arrested and taken to the station for questioning where he proceeded to state that he forced himself on his wife.

      There are several key things that happened at trial. First, Mr. Jordan set the stage early for the trial. During the panel selection process he asked the following questions: a) Have any of you talked dirty to your spouse or significant other prior to having sex; b) Have you ever received mixed signals from your spouse causing a brief conflict between the tow of you?; c) Have you ever admitted to anything that was not true; d) Have you ever agreed with your spouse when you in fact disagreed just to end the argument? These 4 questions among many others set the tone for how this trial was going to progress. Second, the direct testimony of the alleged victim came off like a horrible theatrical production. It was very contrived and forced. Third, Mr. Jordan effectively crossed examined the alleged victim. He talked about the short courtship. He questioned her about the break up during the time she dated Client. He pinpointed her on a key piece of evidence. "Did you date another man while engaged to my client?" The answer was no. Through another witness, Mr. Jordan hammered home to the panel that the alleged victim lied on the stand about this question. The alleged victim was in fact dating another man. If she would lie about this, what else would she lie about? Fourth, Mr. Jordan and his team effectively prepared their Client to testify. The Client told his story. And it was the Client's story, coupled with the effective cross-examination of the alleged victim that secured victory in this case

      Case Number: 503

    • Wrongful Sexual Contact - Military Sexual Assault Full Acquittal

      US ARMY V. CAPTAIN, (INDECENT CONDUCT, WRONGFUL SEXUAL CONTACT, CHILD MOLESTATION, ARTICLE 120).

      Fort Hood Texas

      Client basically faced 3 charges under Article 120 (Child Molestation and Sexual Assault). The original allegations were made in 2010 and were investigated by the local police department in Lampasas, Texas, as well as Waynesville, Missouri. Apparently the local DA’s did not think there was enough evidence to charge the case so they left it alone. In 2012, additional allegations cropped up from the older sister of the original accuser. These new allegations predated the younger sister’s allegations by more than several years and it was the first time the older sisters allegations came to light. In 2014, Fort Hood CID picked up the case because a New Jersey Police Department detective called CID for assistance in interviewing our client. CID then picked up the case and began investigating. The Government only charged the younger sister’s accusations. They planned to use the older sisters allegations as propensity evidence to prove the younger sister’s allegations. Propensity basically means because one event happened, its more likely than not that another similar event happened. Thorough investigation of this case by Mr. Jordan and his Fort Hood TDS co-counsel revealed a myriad of inconsistencies and motivations to lie on both girls’ parts. Mr. Jordan was able to expose motives to fabricate as well as major inconsistencies in both of the complaining witnesses stories. The Government’s original theory was to use the older sister’s allegations as a method to prove the younger sister’s charged allegations. After a lengthy and detailed motions hearing, the defense case became clear as it exposed many problems with the older sister’s claims. The biggest issue the government could not resolve was the timing of the report made by the older sister. The older sister reported 2 years after the younger sister did. The older sister’s allegations predated the younger sisters allegations by several years. She moves out and does not tell her sister or call law enforcement? Additionally, the older sister reported that she filed her allegations because she was made at her father for not paying child support to her mother. There was no way for the government to resolve this and all of this came to light during the motions hearing prior to trial. Once the case went to trial, the Government opted not to put the older sister on the stand and only had the younger sister testify to the charged allegations. Mr. Jordan had to shift his case tactics and strategy on the fly to fully zero in on the problems with the main complaining witness. She did not hold up well to cross-examination. Mr. Jordan confronted her on several occasions with prior inconsistent statements she had made in her initial interviews and at the Article 32 preliminary hearing. At least one panel member had an unresolved question for the complaining witness. Mr. Jordan neatly packaged all of the motives to fabricate, inconsistencies and unanswered questions into a concise closing argument so that the jury could only return one verdict.

      Case Number: 502

    • Drug Distribution - General Military Crimes FULL ACQUITTAL

      US ARMY VS. E1 (ARTICLE 112A, DRUG DISTRIBUTION) - This Client was originally charged with a host of charges to include Obstruction of Justice, False Official Statement, Conspiracy to Distribute controlled substances and several specifications of drug distribution. Mr. Jordan filed a motion to suppress a certain statement that the government gathered from Mr. Jordan's Client. Mr. Jordan won his motion to suppress the statement in question because the Government failed to properly notify his client of his rights when they initially questioned him. Mr. Jordan carefully laid out the time line of events surrounding the taking of this statement. The timeline of events was key in unraveling the Governments intent behind taking the statement in the first place. Mr. Jordan's thorough investigation behind the Government's actions enabled him win his motion to suppress on behalf of his client, successfully wiping away half of the charge sheet his client was facing. Not to be outdone, the Government attempted to file an Article 62 interlocutory appeal to challenge the Judge's ruling. About three weeks later, the Government withdrew their Article 62 appeal. All charges dealing with obstruction of justice and false official statement were effectively withdrawn and dismissed. Now, all that Mr. Jordan's team had to contend with was the conspiracy and the drug distribution charges. Once again, the time line of alleged events was crucial to the outcome of this case. Mr. Jordan and his team carefully pieced together the timeline of events surrounding the alleged time when the Client supposedly dealt controlled substances, by examining the call logs and full text message logs. This examination of the evidence by the Defense team led to careful planning of the examination and cross-examination of all witnesses involved. The Government's chief witness was a convicted felon who had already served about a year in prison. In fact, this was the Government's only witness to any alleged drug dealing conducted. Mr. Jordan effectively exposed the Government's chief witness to be a bold-faced liar during his cross-examination. The Government's chief witness had testified in his own case. He had given several recorded statements. Mr. Jordan even had access to several prison call's he made to other witnesses. Mr. Jordan had plenty to work with in order to effectively cross-examine him. The Government also relied heavily on two text messages. Only two text messages were exchanged between the Government's witness and Mr. Jordan's client and they did not directly reference any conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. There were plenty of messages between the Government's chief witness and other people detailing the sell of controlled substance, but none of those texts referenced Mr. Jordan's client. The text messages that the Government so heavily relied on were turned against them. In the end, Mr. Jordan summed the whole case up in a stunning closing argument.

    • Referred 15-6 Investigation - Adverse Military Administrative Actions NO CHARGES

      US V. 0-5 – US ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND (REFERRED 15-6 INVESTIGATION) Houston, TX - July 2017 Client received a referred 15-6 investigation report. This referred report was given in spite of the fact that the investigation officer had opined there was no substantiation to any of the claims made against our client. He was forced to respond to allegations of equal opportunity violations, discrimination and failure to follow a superior officer’s orders. Our client was the commander of a recruiting battalion at the time. He had a very troubled executive officer (XO). His XO was going through some significant family issues and our client thought it best that he be removed from the position in order for the XO to better handle his personal issues. The XO took issue with this and filed a number of unsubstantiated complaints against our client. Further, during the midst of all of this, our client’s commander was replaced by a new commander who gave unclear and ambiguous advice. This unclear and ambiguous advice was the basis for an unsubstantiated claim of failing to follow a superior officer’s orders. We took the time to interview all of the pertinent witnesses to this 15-6 investigation. We also interviewed the investigating officer. We obtained a statement from him where he told us he actually visited the Command in question to asses for himself. His conclusions were that while our client was a hardnosed Commander with high standards, there was no misconduct and that the Command was extremely well run. We provided a personal statement and an in depth legal review on behalf of our client and the Commanding General threw out the investigation.

    • Sexual Abuse of a Minor - Military Sexual Assault FULL AQUITTAL

      U.S. ARMY V. E-4 (SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL ABUSE OF A MINOR, ASSAULT, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE) - Fort Carson, Colorado - August 2017 - Client was charged with Article 120, Article 120b, Article 128 and Article 134 under the UCMJ. Client was specifically charged with several varieties of sexual abuse of a minor, assaulting several minors and obstruction of justice. The alleged victim was our Client’s biological daughter. In the fall of 2015, after getting in severe trouble for misconduct at school, the alleged victim was asked by medical professionals if she had been sexually abused. She stated that she had. One day later she recanted the allegation. The allegation was never recorded formally. However, the defense discovered that she had written several journal entries on how she made all of the allegations up. The defense also discovered several witnesses who provided information and testimony that she was telling multiple inconsistent stories about what allegedly happened. A year later, after getting in severe trouble for misconduct at school and at home, the alleged victim again alleged sexual assault against our client. He was subsequently charged. The case itself was delayed because the Government Counsel failed to provide vital defense witnesses for trial. Once the trial actually occurred, the alleged victim told yet a different story at trial. In sum, the alleged victim was confronted with all of the lies she had spoken and written. Further, we were able to contact and secure the testimony of 4 different maternal figures in the alleged victim’s life as she grew up. They all testified that she was a liar and a manipulator. During the trial, we successfully cross examined the Government expert on the issue of recantations. Specifically, we were able to secure testimony from the government witness that 90% of original recantations are actually true. Over the course of the trial, the Government failed to put on evidence for three different charges and specifications. The Judge granted our motions for findings of not guilty as a matter of law on one of the sexual assault charges, one of the assault charges and one of the obstruction charges. The military panel found our client not guilty of the remaining charges and specifications.

    • Larceny, BAH Fraud - General Military Crimes CASE DROPPED

      US ARMY V. E-8 (ARTICLE 121, LARCENY, BAH FRAUD)

      Fort Drum, New York

      This highly decorated veteran came under investigation for BAH Fraud when he submitted his travel claim tickets. CID claimed that because his weight during his DITY move was drastically more than when he first moved to the previous duty station, that he was committing fraud. CID went as far as to attempt to seize his banking documents through a subpoena. No banking documents were submitted. No statements were made. The Client held his ground, maintained his innocence.

    • Board of Inquiry - Adverse Military Administrative Actions RETAINED

      U.S. ARMY V. MAJOR (BOARD OF INQUIRY)

      Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA

      Client received a GOMOR for having drug paraphernalia in his home and for testing positive for THC. Client is a highly motivated, highly dedicated Nurse in the Army. He had exhibited a stellar career throughout his time in the military. We were able to successfully show that Client had not taken THC for recreational purposes but for healing purposes. More importantly, we were able to successfully advocate that Client had suffered from a sever mental break from reality causing him to make ill-advised decisions leading to his General Officer Reprimand. Lastly we were able to show that he met all the appropriate criteria for the limited use program and that even if the board voted to separate, the worst discharge he could receive was an Honorable Discharge. The board recognized this Soldier for who he was. The board recognized that this Soldier had made a mistake, not entirely of his own making. The board retained him. This Soldier had a stellar career, and the full support of his immediate chain of command. We were able to successfully advocate that he had worth the US Army and was a contributor that the Army could not do without.