Robbery or Burglary Charges

Every article of the UCMJ contains crucial definitions that can blow up the prosecution’s case when wielded by an experienced attorney. For instance, the UCMJ goes out of its way to even define the term “belong” in Article 122 Robbery.  It says that Property “belongs” to a person who has title to the property, a greater right to possession of the property than the accused, or possession of the property.

That gives the defense the opportunity to bring into question whether or not the alleged victim indeed had a greater right to possession of the property. If you went and kicked PFC Smuckatelli in the back for taking your last can of Zyn in the field, he can’t accuse you of robbery. There may be a very reasonable explanation for why you did what you did. As they say, there is only one thief in the Marine Corps and everyone else is just getting their stuff back.

Under Article 129 Burglary, the prosecution must satisfy the following elements:

(1) That (state the time and place alleged), the accused unlawfully broke and entered the building or structure of (state the person alleged), to wit: (state the building/structure alleged); and

(2) That the breaking and entering were done with the intent to commit (state the offense alleged), an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

It then clarifies that an “entry” must be affected before the offense is complete, but the entry of any part of the body, even a finger, is sufficient. Granted, there is very little in this world that a Marine won’t try to finger bang, but we get to argue and dispute the prosecution on whether or not an actual entry was made and was that entry unlawful.

The truth is that military investigators routinely screw up during their investigations and there might be evidence that would exonerate you sitting on their desk this very minute. They are not lifting a finger to bring it into the light because beyond truth, they just want your conviction. They need to make an example out of you to scare everyone else into compliance.

It is often difficult for service members to know where to draw the line when it comes to “tactically acquiring” property because it is often pseudo-sanctioned by command. We’ve heard first hand accounts of Staff NCOs driving NCOs over to battalion supply for the singular purpose of stealing what they need in the field or on deployment.  How is a young Marine supposed to know when that stops? As they say, gear adrift is a gift and military culture lives that out to its fullest.

As it pertains to robbery, there must exist the use of force or the threat of force for the charge to be complete. The only problem is that the military exists in an aggressive dog eat dog culture. When a Marine says, “Give me that jalapeno cheese or I’m going to jack you up”, that’s just his way of saying pass the salt. It is easy to infer the threat of force in military culture when no actual threat exists.

This is why you can’t plead guilty. We know the prosecution is trying to make you feel as if all is lost. They want you to think that there is no defense because military prosecutors love an easy win. They love to pad their stats off the backs of young men and women are just too scared to fight back. That’s why we fly in hard-hitting attorneys anywhere in the world to defend these men and women. The prosecution is a bully and we give the bully the only thing it understands and that is a punch in the face. We fight back for you. Give us a call and get us into that fight.