Maximum Sentence:
- DD
- 19 years confinement
- Total forfeiture
- Reduction to E-1
- Federal felony conviction
An Army Private First Class was charged at a general court martial with indecent acts and aggravated sexual assault when he and another Soldier were alleged to have had sex with an intoxicated female Soldier.
The alleged victim’s father — a well-connected, high-ranking, retired military officer — attempted to use his position to ensure the client was charged and convicted. Mr. Bilecki, a court martial attorney in Korea, led the defense and believed the alleged victim’s father contacted Senators, Congressmen, Commanding Generals and the Staff Judge Advocate to pressure the command to prefer charges on the client.
Unafraid, at the Article 32 hearing, the defense listed (but was not permitted to call) the involved Senators, Congressmen and high-level Commanding Generals as witnesses to ferret out the unlawful command influence. In addition, the defense attacked the substantial inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s story and showed that this was merely a case of “buyer’s remorse” gone awry after the daughter of a well-heeled family had consensual sex with the not-so-well-to-do Soldier.
The Article 32 Investigating Officer recommended that the sexual assault charges be dismissed, and the client receive Article 15 for indecent acts. Bending to political pressures, the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate scoffed at the recommendation to dismiss the charges and referred all charges to a general court-martial. The defense fought these charges for over seven months while awaiting the trial date.
In this war of attrition, the defense won. The government did not go forward with the aggravated sexual assault charges at a general court martial but instead took the indecent acts charge to a Summary Court Martial. The client received no jail time, was not convicted as a sex offender, and will not have a criminal record
Defending Service Members Globally
Wherever Duty Calls, Our Defense Follows
