Skip to the main content

Worldwide military defenseTampa, Florida · We travel wherever the case requires.

Urgent: call 813-669-3500Go to the urgent telephone path Routine consultationGo to the routine consultation path
BileckiLaw Group
Urgent813-669-3500 Book a consultation
Call813-669-3500 Book

Military defense by location

Schofield Barracks Court Martial Defense: Defending Tropic Lightning Soldiers in Hawaii

Weyand Field at Schofield Barracks during a change of command (2018).
Weyand Field at Schofield Barracks during a change of command (2018).Photo: U.S. Army / Ian Ives · Public domain
Source and image detailsAerial photoFull frame preserved. Display size reduced.
The appearance of U.S. Department of War (DoW) visual information does not imply or constitute DoW endorsement.

Get Free Case Evaluation

Schofield Barracks: Home of the 25th Infantry Division and the Center of Gravity for Army Justice in Hawaii

On the central Oahu plateau above Wahiawa, between the Waianae and Koolau ranges, Schofield Barracks is the largest Army post in Hawaii and the home of the 25th Infantry Division, the light infantry "Tropic Lightning" that trains for jungle and Pacific island warfare out of the Lightning Academy. It is also the center of gravity for Army justice on the island. The Pacific field office of Army CID sits here, and the courtroom where Hawaii Soldiers are court martialed is right next door at Wheeler Army Airfield. If you wear Army green anywhere in Hawaii, from Schofield to Fort Shafter to Tripler, your case will most likely be decided right here.

For this firm, that makes Schofield one of the most important addresses in the islands. This is home ground. Bilecki Law Group was built in Honolulu and spent more than a decade trying cases across these islands. A Soldier facing an investigation or court martial here is fighting for a career, a retirement, and sometimes freedom. The only way to win that fight is to deny the prosecution the easy conviction it expects and make it prove every element of what it has charged.

The Cavalry Trooper Who Took Over the Fight

Schofield carries the names of the 25th Infantry Division's Medal of Honor recipients on a plaque on this post, and one of the newest belongs to a trooper who would not quit. Specialist Five Dwight W. Birdwell was with C Troop, 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry, 25th Infantry Division on January 31, 1968, when the Tet Offensive hit and his unit raced to defend the air base at Tan Son Nhut against a massive enemy assault. His tank commander was gravely wounded in the opening minutes. Birdwell pulled him to safety, climbed into the commander's hatch, and fought the tank's weapons until they were gone, then kept fighting with a rifle and whatever he could grab, holding the line against a force many times his size even after he was wounded and his tank was knocked out. He refused to leave the fight while his fellow Soldiers needed him, and decades later the nation upgraded his award to the Medal of Honor and his division added his name to the wall here. That refusal to step back when the people beside you are in trouble is the standard we bring to a fight at Schofield.

Why Soldiers at Schofield Fly Us In

This is the rare firm a Soldier can call that has real roots in Hawaii and a trial record on this island to prove it. Tim Bilecki founded Bilecki Law Group in Honolulu and ran it from the islands, and for nearly two decades he has tried contested courts martial across Oahu and won full acquittals at Schofield, year after year, in the cases other lawyers tell their clients to plead. The firm is based in Tampa now, and Soldiers fly Tim in from all over the world for the way he tries a case. Hawaii is home, though, and a court martial here is one the firm takes gladly. When a prosecutor at Schofield sees that kind of counsel enter the case, the easy win is gone.

It matters because the military justice system is not built to find the truth. It exists to preserve good order and discipline, and it does that by making a public example of someone, because a ruined career keeps the rest of the formation in line. A serious case at Schofield is investigated by Army CID, whose Pacific field office is on this post, and for sexual assault, domestic violence, and other covered offenses the decision to refer charges to a court martial no longer belongs to your command; it goes to an independent Special Trial Counsel in the Army's Office of Special Trial Counsel. The Trial Defense Service lawyer detailed to you may be sharp and committed, but carries a heavy caseload inside the same system that is prosecuting you. That is why Soldiers serious about winning bring in their own counsel.

UCMJ Charges We Defend at Schofield Barracks

What follows are the charges we most often defend at Schofield Barracks. They are not the only ones, and if yours is not here we still want to hear from you.

Sexual Assault and Sex Offenses (UCMJ Article 120 / Article 134). The Army runs its SHARP program at Schofield under intense institutional pressure. An allegation is often treated as established before the investigation is finished, and where the evidence will not support a charge, the command falls back on administrative separation. Soldiers have also learned that a complaint can redirect an investigation or settle a barracks or relationship dispute, and a command focused on showing it takes every report seriously is in no position to weigh motive. These cases go to an independent Special Trial Counsel now, a dedicated prosecutor whose only job is to win them. Beating that takes a defense that runs its own investigation and is built to try the case, not one that waits for the government to get it right.

A serious and growing part of our Hawaii work is defending service members swept up in the online predator stings run on this island, the Operation Keiki Shield operations. These are joint stings. Military investigators from NCIS, Army CID, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations work alongside the State's Internet Crimes Against Children task force. An agent poses online as a fourteen or fifteen year old, steers the conversation toward sex and a meeting, and arrests whoever shows up. There is usually no actual child, which means that under the UCMJ the charge is most often an attempt under Article 80 and it requires specific intent and an act that goes beyond mere preparation. We defend the court martial that comes out of these stings, and we have won them, with numerous full acquittals over the years. In one at Schofield, Tim argued entrapment and exposed agents who had used photographs of an adult to pose as a minor. The defenses are a mistake of fact as to age, where the person reasonably believed they were dealing with an adult; entrapment, where the government planted the idea in someone who was not predisposed to it. After the arrest, agents push hard for a written statement or an apology letter, because that is the fastest way to lock in their case. Do not give one, and if you already have, a statement taken under that kind of pressure can still be challenged. We also examine compliance with Internet Crimes Against Children protocols for weaknesses in the investigation and the agents’ credibility. A protocol violation alone is not a legal defense; its significance depends on the charged offense, the evidence, and the applicable defense.

Larceny and Fraud (UCMJ Article 121 / Article 107). Most of these cases are straightforward theft allegations under Article 121: gear that goes missing from a workspace or a barracks room, a government travel card charge the command calls theft, or a dispute over who owned what. When a case involves a signed document like a travel voucher or a finance form, the government often adds a false official statement under Article 107, treating an honest error or bad guidance from finance as if it were a deliberate lie. We defend larceny, wrongful appropriation, government travel card and pay fraud, and false official statements, and we win them on the paper trail and on the intent the government would rather assume than prove.

Domestic Violence and Assault (UCMJ Articles 128b and 128). Domestic violence under Article 128b has become one of the largest parts of our caseload, and a post with this many families stationed far from home sees a great deal of it. Since the Office of Special Trial Counsel took these cases over it is charged as aggressively as any offense in the UCMJ. It covers a spouse, an intimate partner, or a family member, and it treats strangulation or suffocation as its own charge that the government can bring even with no visible injury. A qualifying conviction also triggers the federal Lautenberg firearms bar, which can end an Army career because a Soldier has to be able to carry a weapon. We also defend assault under Article 128, including the off base fights the military can still prosecute under the UCMJ even when civilian police never filed a charge. Self defense is a recognized defense, and what actually happened often looks different from the first report once the evidence comes in.

Drug Offenses (UCMJ Article 112a). Hawaii has a longstanding problem with methamphetamine, and the drug cases the command worries about here are less about a single marijuana positive than about ice and other substances bought on the island. A positive urinalysis or a possession allegation is serious but not the end of the fight. The chain of custody can be challenged, innocent ingestion is a recognized defense, and the government still has to prove that any use or possession was knowing and wrongful. Get experienced counsel involved as early as you can, because the government works hardest to lock in its case at the very start.

Military Specific Offenses (UCMJ Articles 134, 113, 92, and more). A lot of these charges start off duty, and from Schofield that means Wahiawa, the bars of Waikiki, and the nightlife of Chinatown and Hotel Street in Honolulu. A Soldier is subject to the UCMJ off post just as much as on it. A DUI, a drunken and disorderly, or a downtown fight comes back to the command, and it rarely stops at one charge. The command stacks disorderly conduct under Article 134, a violated order or regulation under Article 92, and, for an officer, conduct unbecoming under Article 133, to drive up the maximum punishment and the pressure to plead. Every specification still has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt on its own, and the weak ones on an inflated charge sheet are the first to fall.

Even in Paradise, a Mistake Shouldn't End a Career

Not every Soldier who calls us from Hawaii is innocent, and we do not pretend otherwise. Some made a bad decision and know it. That does not mean they have to accept the worst the system can hand out, prosecuted by an institution eager to turn one case into a warning for everyone else on the post. Rank does not decide whether you need a firm like ours; the seriousness of the case does. If a matter is genuinely minor, your Trial Defense Service counsel can handle it, and we will tell you so honestly, because we do not take every case and we will not take a Soldier's money for one that does not need us.

But when the case is serious, everything is on the line at once: your career, your retirement, your good name, and your freedom. A court martial conviction is a federal criminal conviction. Under the sentencing rules now in force, it can mean confinement a judge has little discretion to avoid, a punitive discharge that follows you for life, and on a sex offense a place on a registry, no matter your rank. That is why you fight, and the system is counting on you not to.

If you are facing an investigation or court martial at Schofield Barracks, reach out for a free defense strategy session. We know this island, we know how these cases move here, and we will tell you exactly what you are facing and how we would defend it. The government is already building its case. The only question is whether anyone is building yours.

Get Free Case Evaluation

Cases Connected to Schofield Barracks

These cases include trials, hearings, investigations, and administrative matters. A connection to this location does not necessarily mean that the trial occurred here.

FAQ

CID wants to interview me at Schofield. Do I have to talk to them?
No. You are not required to sit for a CID interview or to answer their questions. Under Article 31b of the UCMJ you have the right to remain silent, and you can invoke it and ask for a lawyer at any point, including before the interview begins. The interview is not your chance to clear things up; it is how CID builds its case, and you do not talk your way out of an investigation, only deeper into one. Decline politely, ask for counsel, and call a defense lawyer before you give any statement.

Why hire Bilecki Law Group instead of a local attorney already on island?
We win court martial cases. Service members fly us in from all over the world because military defense is all we do and our trial record proves it. We are not new to this island either: Bilecki Law Group was founded in Honolulu and tried cases across Oahu for more than a decade, so our national record comes with real knowledge of the local prosecutors and the Wheeler courtroom where your case will be heard.

I'm under investigation at Schofield but haven't been charged. Is it too early to call a lawyer?
No, it is the opposite. The strongest time to have a lawyer is before charges are preferred, because that is when a statement that would hurt you can still be avoided and when the investigation can still be challenged. Hiring your own counsel does not cost you the free TDS lawyer the Army provides; it only adds to your defense. That early window is when a defense lawyer can do the most for you.

I was arrested in an Operation Keiki Shield sting. Is there a defense when I showed up to the meeting?
Yes. These cases turn on intent, and intent is fought over in the messages that came before the meeting, not in the fact that someone showed up. There is no real child in a sting, so the charge is usually an attempt under Article 80, and the government has to prove what you actually intended. The defenses we use are a mistake of fact as to age, where you reasonably believed you were dealing with an adult; entrapment, where investigators planted the idea in someone who was not predisposed to it. Do not give a statement or write an apology letter, and if you already have, one taken under that kind of pressure can still be challenged. We also examine compliance with Internet Crimes Against Children protocols for weaknesses in the investigation and the agents’ credibility. A protocol violation alone is not a legal defense; its significance depends on the charged offense, the evidence, and the applicable defense.

From the time I retained his services to a personal consultation it was less than 72 hours. … by the time he had arrived back in Hawaii he had reviewed my file on his flight over! I called 3 other attorneys and they all would take over 2 weeks to start working on my case.

Sergio

Read the full testimonial

Prior results do not predict future outcomes. A prospective client may not obtain the same or similar results.