Bilecki Wins Suppression and Negotiates Dismissal of Burglary Charges; Marine Receives Eighteen Months

Bilecki Wins Suppression and Negotiates Dismissal of Burglary Charges; Marine Receives Eighteen Months

December 2025

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina

Marine Corps Sergeant – E-5

Allegations: UCMJ Article 129 Burglary; UCMJ Article 121 Larceny of Military Property; UCMJ Article 108 Wrongful Sale and Disposition of Military Property

Facts

A Marine Sergeant stole a rifle off a ship, hid it under a 7-ton, moved it off base, and then helped stage a fake break-in at a Camp Lejeune motor pool to cover missing gear before more military property started disappearing. By the time the government was done building the case, ATF, FBI, and NCIS had all touched it, the discovery ran roughly 9,000 pages, and the matter was sitting at a referred general court-martial.

That is the case the government thought it was taking to trial.

The first part started aboard ship. After taking the rifle from the JMIC, it was hidden under the frame of a 7-ton until the unit got off the ship. From there, it was moved to a car trunk, then driven off base and brought to a hotel in Jacksonville. The second part was different but just as bad. After a field exercise, gear was missing and a group of Marines decided to make it look like an outside break-in instead of answering for the missing property. A key was used to get into the motor pool, the fence was cut to create the appearance of forced entry, and gear was removed so the story would match the scene. The next morning, the "break-in" got reported.

This was not a small property case that was ever going to disappear quietly. It was a referred general court-martial with burglary charges, larceny charges, Article 108 charges, multiple agencies, a massive file, and enough evidence to make the government think it had all the leverage. Statements. Digital evidence. Recovered property. The kind of case where the prosecution usually expects the defense to come in asking for mercy.

Tim Bilecki did not handle it that way.

We built the team the case required. Bilecki brought in Dr. Gabriel Holguin as the defense forensic psychologist and Patrick Eller as the digital forensic examiner. Dr. Holguin testified at the suppression hearing, and that testimony was integral to getting key evidence suppressed. Eller helped the defense work through the digital forensic evidence the government thought it understood. In a case like this, with that many agencies and that much digital evidence, you do not win by showing up alone and hoping for the best.

The motion hearing became the turning point. We challenged the interrogation and the related phone evidence hard. This was not a filler motion. It was a real suppression fight in a serious case, and it mattered. The military judge granted the motion in part and suppressed portions of the phone data the government needed.

That changed everything.

Bilecki traveled to Camp Lejeune, litigated the motion, and then handled negotiations in person all the way up through the O-6 Staff Judge Advocate level. The government went from holding a referred burglary case with a mountain of discovery to dealing with a case that suddenly carried real trial risk. Before the suppression hearing, the government had very little reason to move. After the hearing, it did.

The burglary charges came off the table. The case resolved by plea to two larceny specifications and four Article 108 specifications involving the sale and disposition of military property. For a case that started with burglary charges, multiple agencies, and serious confinement exposure, that was a very different ending than the one the government had in mind when it referred charges.

This is what serious motion practice is supposed to do. Sometimes the most important negotiation in the case does not happen because the government suddenly gets reasonable. It happens because the defense wins something first.

Result: Referred general court-martial resolved by plea. Burglary charges withdrawn and dismissed. Sentenced to 18 months confinement, bad-conduct discharge, and reduction to E-1.

---

FAQ

Q: What did the suppression ruling change?
The judge excluded portions of the phone data after a contested hearing supported by Dr. Holguin's testimony and Eller's forensic work. Bilecki then negotiated in person with senior legal officials. The government agreed to remove the burglary allegations, and the case resolved by pleas to the remaining property offenses.

Q: What was the complete result?
The burglary charges were withdrawn and dismissed. The pleas were to two larceny specifications and four specifications involving sale or disposition of military property. The sentence was eighteen months of confinement, a bad conduct discharge and reduction to E-1. The motion produced meaningful relief, but the resolution still included convictions and punishment.