Bilecki Defends Quantico Marine During Investigation and Article 32 Proceedings

Bilecki Defends Quantico Marine During Investigation and Article 32 Proceedings

2025

Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia

Marine Corporal – E-4

Allegations: UCMJ Article 134 Possession of Child Pornography (1 specification); UCMJ Article 120c Indecent Recording (13 specifications); UCMJ Article 112a Wrongful Possession of a Controlled Substance (3 specifications)

Facts

A Marine Corporal at MCB Quantico was under an OSTC-NCR investigation that ultimately produced a referred general court-martial on a seventeen-specification charge sheet. One Article 134 specification for possession of child pornography. Thirteen Article 120c specifications for indecent recording of a fellow Marine. Three Article 112a specifications for wrongful possession of testosterone, trenbolone, and nandrolone. Maximum exposure on a referred Article 134 child pornography conviction at general court-martial: years of confinement, possible Dishonorable Discharge, federal felony record, and sex offender registration.

The Government's case began in May 2024 when a fellow Marine reported observing our client viewing an alleged video of a minor on a phone in a barracks parking lot. The phone was seized that day. NCIS opened an investigation. Subsequent digital forensic examination of the device produced the Article 120c specifications against a fellow Marine and the Article 112a steroid possession evidence.

Our client retained Bilecki at the OSTC target letter stage in mid-2024, before any preferral.

We engaged at the investigation stage and through the Article 32 preliminary hearing.

We secured a Defense-Litigation Resource Fund authorization for Patrick Eller of Metadata Forensics LLC as the defense digital forensics consultant, with scope covering the Cellebrite extraction methodology, Telegram metadata, and alternative explanations for the recovered files. We notified OSTC of the representation and advised our client concerning his interview rights. We submitted excludable delay requests. After our client was placed on suicide watch at Rappahannock Regional Jail during pretrial confinement, we filed an R.C.M. 706 inquiry for a sanity board on capacity and responsibility.

The Article 32 hearing took place in May 2025. The preliminary hearing officer recommended referral to a general court-martial.

The engagement concluded after the Article 32 stage. Subsequent additional charges surfaced beyond the original Article 134, Article 120c, and Article 112a charge sheet, and BLG's representation did not continue to final disposition.

Result: Pre-preferral and Article 32 representation. Article 32 PHO recommended GCM. Final disposition outside scope of BLG engagement.

---

FAQ

Q: What did Bilecki arrange during the investigation and hearing stages?
The defense obtained funding for Patrick Eller to examine the digital evidence, including the extraction method, Telegram metadata and possible explanations for the recovered files. It also requested an inquiry into mental capacity and responsibility after the client's mental-health crisis in confinement.

Q: Did Bilecki represent the Marine at final disposition?
No. The engagement ended after the Article 32 stage, where the hearing officer recommended referral. This account describes the investigative, expert and preliminary-hearing work within BLG's representation; it does not attribute a later trial result to the firm.