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

Fort Cavazos (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 Cavazos (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 Cavazos (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.