Five Child Sexual Assault Specifications Dismissed; Warrant Officer Later Retires at Same Grade

Five Child Sexual Assault Specifications Dismissed; Warrant Officer Later Retires at Same Grade

February 2025

Conduct: Fort Novosel, Alabama and Wiesbaden, Germany. Trial: Kaiserslautern, Germany.

Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 – W-2

Allegations: UCMJ Article 120b Sexual Assault of a Child / Sexual Abuse of a Child (5 specifications); UCMJ Article 131b Obstruction of Justice; UCMJ Article 134 Extramarital Conduct

Facts

An Army Special Forces Chief Warrant Officer 2 with a Purple Heart for a 2010 combat injury was facing a referred general court-martial in Germany on five specifications of Article 120b sexual assault of a child and sexual abuse of a child against his stepdaughter, plus an Article 131b obstruction specification and an Article 134 extramarital specification. The Article 120b counts were routed through the Office of Special Trial Counsel as covered offenses. Maximum exposure: decades of confinement, possible Dismissal, federal felony record, and sex offender registration.

The Government alleged that across spring through fall 2020 in Alabama and from late 2020 to spring 2021 in Germany, our client had digitally penetrated, touched, or made sexual contact with the alleged victim while she was in the family home, and had later attempted to obstruct justice by offering to buy the alleged victim a phone if she recanted.

Sexsomnia was the central defense theory.

Sexsomnia is a recognized non-REM parasomnia in the International Classification of Sleep Disorders. In this case, we supported the sexsomnia theory with a sleep history predating the charged conduct, a clinical sleep study, and forensic psychiatry assistance. We put all three pieces on the record.

Our client's first wife, from a separate marriage that pre-dated the conduct in the charge sheet by more than a decade, was preserved as a defense lay witness on the pre-marriage parasomnia behavior. When the Government tried to limit her testimony, we locked her in by stipulation. We secured a confidential forensic psychiatry expert with a court-ordered finding that sexsomnia was a valid diagnostic possibility for our client. We ran a polysomnography sleep study at Wiesbaden, on the record.

The motion practice was heavy.

We moved under M.R.E. 412 to put before the panel the alleged victim's disclosure to her former boyfriend about her conduct around our client. The defense sought to use that evidence in addressing the circumstances of the alleged acts and the sleep-state theory; it was not a claim that a child could legally consent to the charged sexual conduct. The Military Judge granted the motion. We moved to limit the Government's uncharged misconduct evidence on nine separate categories of propensity material. The Military Judge ruled mixed across the categories and the Government's propensity record was substantially narrowed.

The defense expert team included a forensic psychiatry consultant on the parasomnia theory, a forensic psychology consultant on child witness assessment, and a digital forensics consultant on the message and device record, all funded by the Convening Authority.

By the time we sat down at the negotiating table, the Government's Article 120b case was running into a developed sleep-state defense supported by expert assistance and the evidence rulings described above and the contemporaneous statement the judge had allowed the defense to use.

The Plea Agreement walked all five Article 120b specifications, the Article 131b obstruction specification, and the Article 134 extramarital specification off the case sheet. A new specification was preferred under Article 119b endangering the welfare of a child by culpable negligence resulting in mental harm, on a separate factual incident from the Government's Article 120b case. Special court-martial forum. No punitive discharge under any circumstances. 121 days confinement. Both parties' agreement on the record that the plea did not subject our client to sex offender registration, with Box 30 on the Statement of Trial Result unchecked. An agreement to apply for voluntary retirement under AR 600-8-24 Chapter 6 at our client's first eligible date at twenty years of active federal service.

The Military Judge accepted the plea at the special court-martial in Kaiserslautern. The Article 120b, Article 131b, and Article 134 charges and specifications were withdrawn and dismissed. No punitive discharge. No federal sex offender registration. The agreement provided for a retirement application at eligibility.

Our client applied for retirement and retired at the same grade.

Result: Article 119b special court-martial plea, with a 121-day confinement term, no punitive discharge, and no sex-offender registration. Our client subsequently applied for retirement and retired at the same grade.

---

FAQ

Q: How did Bilecki develop the sleep-state defense?
He secured expert assistance, obtained a clinical sleep study and preserved testimony from a former spouse who described sleep behavior predating the allegations. When the government sought to limit that testimony, the defense secured a stipulation. The sleep study and history gave the experts material to evaluate; neither alone proved the client's state during a particular alleged act.

Q: What did the agreement resolve?
All five Article 120b specifications and the obstruction and extramarital charges were withdrawn and dismissed. Our client pleaded guilty to child endangerment involving a separate incident. The disposition included 121 days of confinement, no punitive discharge and no sex offender registration. He later applied for retirement and retired at the same grade. The retirement provision was followed by an actual retirement at the same grade.