Navigating Client Choice During A Military Court Martial

In a perfect world, clients facing a military court martial would always heed our advice. We’ve been doing this for a long time and we’ve got the track record to prove that we know how to win. That being said, we respect our clients and fully recognize that it is their ass on the line. So when a client goes against our best advice, we simply treat it like a tactical change on the battlefield and resume our offensive from the new reality. We never quit fighting for our clients, even when they make a bad situation worse. In this article, we’ll walk you through some of the decisions that rest solely with the client and how we navigate the tactical landscape around them.

Choosing The Right Military Court Martial Defense Attorney

The first decision a service member has to make when he or she finds out they are under investigation is the choice of counsel. Now, this might sound a bit self-serving, but we do have a recommended course of action. Namesake and founder, Tim Bilecki, spent years inside the military justice system as a senior defense counsel for the Army. He likes to think he was pretty good at it, but he will be the first to tell you that there are limitations to detailed counsel.

The first limitation is that you simply don’t know who you are going to get. You might get an outstanding JAG defense counsel. Then again, you might get an attorney who is more concerned about his own military career than your own. The other consideration when it comes to detailed counsel is that they are forced to play by the prosecution’s rules. They have to beg for resources and they can’t ruffle feathers too much or they’ll be in their own world of trouble. On the plus side, they come at no cost to the client.

Private counsel is under no such constraints. They still have to follow the proper procedures, but they get to do it like a wrecking ball that doesn’t care what it has to destroy along the way. Bilecki gets to be a bull in a China shop because he doesn’t care about his own military career that is long over. Put a four star General on the stand and Bilecki will tear him a new one during cross examination. Bilecki also gets to employ his own investigatiom without asking permission from anyone. At the end of the day, it is up to the client whether to pursue detailed counsel or private counsel. However, all choices have consequences.

Court Martial Trial By Military Judge Or Panel

The next strategic decision a client has to make is whether to choose a trial by a military judge alone or a panel that could include at least one-third enlisted members if the client is enlisted. There are strategic advantages to each forum and those are often dictated by the nature of the case. If you were world class piece of trash like Bowe Bergdahl who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was captured by the Taliban, I’d recommend trial by military judge. Service members are not too fond of Bergdahl due to those that were killed or wounded as a result of his search. Sentiment among the ranks is just not in his favor.

Now, let’s say you’re on trial for sexual assault involving another Soldier who was intoxicated. That’s an entirely different scenario. A panel of service members will approach the case with a different perspective, weighing the complexities of military culture, consent, and responsibility.   We’re not saying perception is everything—but in a court-martial, it matters. If you’re a high-performing special operator with an exemplary service record, you want a panel that will fairly consider your history and the full context of the case. The composition of the panel can have a significant impact on how your story is received.

In most cases, we advise going with a panel. Over the years, we’ve found that senior enlisted, warrants, and experienced officers—those with real-world perspective—tend to be the best option. We relate to them, we can talk to them, and we can shoot them straight. When they know you, like you, and trust you, they’re more likely to see the case for what it really is.  That said, it’s always a case-by-case decision, and we use our 20+ years of experience to guide the client toward the best choice. Ultimately, it’s their call. Even if they go against our advice, we don’t pout or take it personally—no matter how bad of a decision it might be. We just treat it like a new phase line in the offensive, put on our big boy pants, and get back into the fight.

Deciding Whether To Plead Guilty Or Not Guilty

This is, again, a decision only the client can make. We advise, explain, and offer direction, but the choice is ultimately theirs. Most of the time, we fight. And we fight hard. But in those rare cases where the evidence is overwhelming – CCTV footage, DNA, multiple eyewitnesses, a full confession, text messages spelling out intent, or other damning proof – a guilty plea may be the smartest tactical move. However, maybe we can keep you out of military prison and avoid a dishonorable discharge by negotiating the right guilty plea. The right approach can mean the difference between serving hard time and walking away with your future intact.

In other cases, we advise our clients to fight like hell and plead not guilty. We take the fight right to the heart of the prosecution and take no prisoners along the way. We don’t do this out of false confidence. We fight when we know this is the right approach, but the client still has to have the heart to fight. There have been cases where we were eager to get to trial so that we could devastate the prosecution’s case, but the client just didn’t have any fight left in him. We still fight for them and negotiate the best possible outcome, but damn we could have done so much more if they just had the heart for it. At the end of the day, it is their choice.

Choosing To Testify In Your Own Defense During A Court Martial

In most criminal trials, including court-martials, defendants choose not to testify. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, and we aim to keep it that way; shifting it to the defense is not in our strategy. Often, we don’t need to call any witnesses and can secure a win through effective cross-examination alone. Consider high-profile cases like O.J. Simpson’s in 1995 and A$AP Rocky’s recent trial in 2025—both defendants refrained from testifying and were acquitted. While testifying can be a powerful tool, we ensure our clients are thoroughly prepared. However, if we believe that taking the stand could jeopardize the case—perhaps due to potential inconsistencies or vulnerabilities under cross-examination—we’ll advise against it. Ultimately, the decision rests with the client.

Once again, if a client goes against our advice, it doesn’t change our willingness to fight for them. It makes things harder, but not impossible, to still secure the best possible outcome. Good service members are often eager to take the stand because they want to defend their name and tell their side of the story. But they need to understand the implications—especially how the prosecution will try to trip them up.

If we’ve already cast doubt on whether you were aware the other Soldier was too intoxicated to consent, we don’t need you taking the stand and accidentally admitting that you helped them to their room because they couldn’t walk straight. There’s a time to show up and a time to shut up. We’ll advise, but the choice is always the clients.

In Summary And Conclusion Of Client Choice

In 1944, General Theodore Roosevelt Jr. was begging higher command to join the first wave of troops to land on Utah Beach. The son of famous President Teddy Roosevelt, the man had a lot to live up to. However, the General was in his 50s, often used a cane to walk, and suffered from a heart condition. With this in mind, his request to join the first wave on DDay was denied. Yet, the General persisted and was eventually given permission. General Omar Bradley assumed he would never see Roosevelt alive again.

When the first boats landed, they were nearly a mile off of their course and units were disoriented and panicked. Roosevelt could be seen calm and collective walking up and down the beach despite enemy fire. When it was determined that they were indeed a mile off course, Roosevelt calmly responded, “We’ll start the war from right here then.”

Whenever our clients make decisions that we would not recommend, that’s our approach. We simply reply, we’ll start the war from right here then. At each stage of the process we fight like hell for our clients and strive to be the calm for them in the storm that is trial by court martial. We take the fight to the prosecution wherever that may lead us. If you are facing an investigation or court martial, reach out to us. We’ll shoot you straight on exactly what you are facing and will offer our best counsel at each stage of the process. Whether you go left or you go right with your decisions in the process, we’ll fight like hell every step of the way.