MacDill Air Force Base is eight miles south of downtown Tampa, on the southwestern tip of the Interbay Peninsula in Hillsborough County. It is an Air Mobility Command installation with two missions: air refueling and airlift support. The 6th Air Mobility Wing operates KC-135 Stratotankers and C-37 Gulfstreams.
The base also houses two of the most important Unified Commands in the U.S. military: United States Central Command (CENTCOM) and United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM). From MacDill, CENTCOM oversees operations across the Middle East and Central Asia, while SOCOM directs the nation’s special operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Rangers, in missions ranging from counterterrorism to humanitarian assistance.
Alongside these headquarters, MacDill hosts 51 tenant units, including the Joint Communications Support Element (JCSE), which provides deployable communications for joint military forces and federal agencies. The base’s position on Florida’s Gulf Coast gives it access to a major seaport and commercial airport, while the favorable climate supports year-round training and mission readiness.
We know Florida well. With one of us stationed at Hurlburt Field and the other at Keesler in the early 2000s, we’ve been handling cases across the state for over two decades: from Eglin, Tyndall, and Pensacola in the Panhandle to MacDill in Tampa, down to Patrick Space Force Base, Miami, and across to Mayport and Jacksonville. We’ve also handled a National Guard case in Orlando and worked extensively at bases throughout Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.
Q: How can a defense challenge a medical opinion that a child’s injury is “consistent with abuse”?
A: A medical opinion used for diagnosis is not the same as legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A strong defense challenges this opinion by introducing alternative, non-criminal explanations. This process, known as a differential diagnosis, uses defense experts (funded by the government) to explore every other potential cause for the injury. These alternatives can include rare medical conditions, genetic disorders, pre-existing injuries, or simple accidents like short falls.
Q: What is the strategy for challenging a child’s statement in court?
A: The focus is on the integrity of the investigative process, not the child. Military and civilian agencies must follow strict, standardized protocols when interviewing children to avoid suggestion and leading questions. The first step in a strong defense is to analyze the video and transcript of the forensic interview. If the interviewer failed to follow protocol or used suggestive language, the reliability of the entire statement can be called into question, showing the testimony was contaminated.
Q: Why is “consent” not a defense in a military child abuse case?
A: The law presumes that a person below a certain age is legally incapable of consenting to a sexual act. This creates a “strict liability” situation where the central defense used in adult cases is completely removed. In most Article 120b cases, the legal battle is not about consent, but about the reliability of the evidence itself.
Q: Can the government win a conviction with only the testimony of one child?
A: Yes. A conviction under Article 120b can be secured based on the testimony of a single child with no other direct evidence. A successful defense must therefore focus on the credibility of that testimony, which typically follows one of two paths.
In many cases, the strategy is not to prove the child is intentionally lying, but to prove the reporting process was flawed. A child’s memory is highly vulnerable to suggestion from parents, therapists, or interviewers. Our focus is to dissect the forensic interview process to identify leading questions, coercion, or breaks in protocol that contaminated the child’s memory and rendered their testimony unreliable.
However, sometimes the hard truth is that a child is lying, often due to external pressures like a contentious custody battle. Even when we can prove perjury, our approach is never to aggressively attack or “beat up” a child witness. Instead, we patiently and firmly use cross-examination to demonstrate the inconsistencies and expose the falsehoods. The goal is to lead the judge or panel to see the lie for themselves through meticulous and controlled questioning, not through courtroom theatrics.
Q: In a severe UCMJ case like child abuse or enticement, where is your loyalty and what’s the biggest challenge?
A: While our immediate focus is always on the service member facing charges, their liberty and future are our top priorities. Our professional responsibility extends much further. Successfully handling these specific allegations hinges on an attorney’s capacity for intense psychological discipline, which is the central challenge of this work.
This discipline shows up in three areas:
Clinical Objectivity: We are required to examine harrowing evidence, including graphic reports or digital files. This material must be treated as a set of technical data points to be analyzed for forensic weaknesses, not as something to be viewed with an emotional response.
Strategic Focus: Personal feelings about the nature of an allegation are irrelevant to the legal work. Our duty is to immediately set aside any moral judgment and pivot to a technical and constitutional analysis of the government’s case. We hunt for defects in the chain of custody, procedural errors, and violations of our client’s rights, as that is where a defense is built.
The Art of Mitigation: If a case results in a conviction, the mission changes entirely. The focus shifts immediately to presenting a compelling and compassionate narrative that humanizes our client. Without excusing or conceding the offense, we build a powerful case for leniency and a reduced sentence, a skill that demands a completely different mode of advocacy.
This demanding work on behalf of an individual serves a much larger principle. Our firm operates on a belief that the integrity of the entire military justice system is tested in every single case. By mounting the most aggressive and thorough defense possible for each client, especially in the most difficult and unpopular cases, we force the system to prove its case and adhere to the rule of law. This effort ensures that the constitutional protections guaranteed to every service member remain strong and meaningful.
Q: Why are UCMJ fraud cases particularly dangerous?
A: Because the prosecution never stops at one charge. Fraud is typically prosecuted using a triad of Articles that stack the consequences against you and raise the odds of a conviction on at least one charge:
Article 121 (Larceny): The baseline charge for the actual theft of money. The defense depends on challenging the prosecution’s proof of specific intent to steal.
Article 132 (Fraudulent Claims): This charge targets the act of signing and submitting the false paperwork (like travel vouchers), even if the amount is minor.
Article 107 (False Official Statement): This is an “integrity” crime, levied for lying to an official agency. A conviction for a False Official Statement almost guarantees a punitive discharge.
Ask the Questions That Actually Help You
Stop letting yourself be distracted by fake statistics and recycled marketing lines. If you want to know whether a lawyer can really defend you, skip the slogans and ask the questions that reveal substance.
Q: How do you handle cases that involve both military and civilian authorities?
A: Overlap cases are where most lawyers fail. When both systems have jurisdiction, you need a single, coordinated defense, not two disconnected efforts. We contact local police, NCIS, OSI, or CID immediately, making sure each side knows you have counsel and that information isn’t bleeding between agencies in a way that hurts your position. The goal is unified control: one message, one defense, one outcome.
Q: What’s your approach to an Article 120 case built on alcohol and memory gaps?
A: These cases are not about personalities; they’re about science. The defense focuses on the limits of alcohol-impaired memory, how quickly recall fragments, and how easily suggestion reshapes perception. We expose those flaws using research, not rhetoric. The objective isn’t to discredit the accuser but to prove the evidence can’t meet the burden of proof.
Q: How do you operate inside the new OSTC system?
A: OSTC lawyers function like federal prosecutors with conviction rates as their scoreboard. Waiting for charges is a mistake. We engage early, presenting exculpatory facts and highlighting weak points before the case hardens. By forcing them to confront the risk of losing, we often prevent a trial from happening at all.
Q: Why don’t you advertise a 95% “win rate” like some firms?
A: Because those numbers are fake. “Win rate” is whatever the advertiser decides it means. Anything less than the max punishment can be called a win. We don’t manufacture statistics. We give direct, candid assessments: where your case stands, what can be fixed, and what can’t.
How to Spot Marketing Gimmicks in Military Defense
Most service members fall for the wrong pitch because they ask the wrong questions. Here’s how to see through the noise.
Q: Is a lawyer who claims a 95% success rate being honest?
A: No. It’s a con. They want you to stop thinking once you see the number. Real trial lawyers know success is measured in outcomes that preserve lives and careers, not percentages pulled from spreadsheets.
Q: Does bragging about “trial count” prove experience?
A: Not even close. Counting a quick guilty plea as a “trial” is a lie by omission. The number of trials means nothing without context. What matters is the kind of trials, the stakes involved, and the results achieved.
Q: Why would a lawyer push my case to trial if it could settle?
A: Sometimes because they can’t negotiate credibly. Prosecutors don’t trust them, so early resolution is impossible. Others drag cases forward because trials pay more. A high trial count often signals inefficiency, not effectiveness.
Q: Why do most law firms route calls through chatbots and receptionists?
A: Because it’s easier. Automation hides unresponsiveness behind the illusion of 24/7 access. We don’t do that. When you reach out, you reach us directly, the lawyers who will be in your corner from the first call to the last day in court. No gatekeepers, no scripts, no delays.
Your Quick Guide to Defending an Article 120 Charge
Memory doesn’t record; it reconstructs from pieces and feelings. A witness can sound certain and still be wrong. Each time a story is told, it changes. Alcohol and trauma warp recall and create false memories. The brain fills gaps with details that feel real but aren’t. A blackout is amnesia, not unconsciousness. Fragmented recall gets patched together with guesswork.
Emotion proves distress, not guilt. The panel has to learn to separate the two. Logic and science counter sympathy and fear. Confirmation bias makes people see only what fits their belief. Hindsight bias makes normal moments look like warnings. “Why would she lie?” has answers. Other people plant certainty in the accuser’s mind.
Military courtrooms reward professionalism, not theatrics. Credibility comes from steady, confident work. The best cross-examination is composed, not wild. The point of a good cross-examination is truth, not humiliation. A conversational tone lets the witness reveal their own contradictions. “Destructive” cross has its place, but it shouldn’t be the default. A skilled lawyer moves between styles without losing control. Liars fold faster under patience than pressure. Silence as a questioning method works. Military panels trust professionalism over pageantry.
Memory gaps from alcohol are where defenses thrive. A blackout case offers real hope; a pass-out case is a problem. Logical fallacies hide in prosecution arguments, so your attorney needs to spot them and expose them. The government often leans on inference instead of proof.
Every “he said/she said” case can go either way. Mistake of Fact recognizes honest confusion. Reasonableness gets judged by a sober standard, not a drunk one. Puke is always “a bad fact,” so sex after visible sickness or confusion is trouble.
Consent matters every time, even in long-term relationships. Literally every time, so the generous birthday wake-up can be characterized as sexual assault. Age mistakes have to be truly reasonable. The law protects honest confusion, not deliberate ignorance.
Getting to OSTC early builds influence. Show them weaknesses before charges get filed. Waiting until trial is too late. OSTC wants wins they can defend, not scalps. Alienating the judge or panel is fatal; they’ll punish the client for the attorney’s rudeness. But if the attorney earns their respect, it works in reverse.
Child testimony triggers protective instincts in everyone. Your lawyer can’t look like a bully, even if the child is lying. Use logic and evidence, not confrontation. Lose your temper with a child and you lose the case. Redirect empathy toward fairness. Everyone watches the defense constantly. A smart lawyer abandons questions that aren’t working. Parenting experience in an attorney helps, as it teaches you how to talk across ages, even to a hostile child witness. Defending child cases takes objectivity and instinct for reading a courtroom months before anyone stands in it.
Two Decades of UCMJ Defense at MacDill and Nationwide
We opened this firm in 2005 after leaving the Air Force JAG Corps, where we’d been trying courts-martial since 2001. We’ve never done anything else. No insurance defense, no divorces, no personal injury. Just military criminal defense and federal court.
The military justice system recently adopted federal procedures. We’ve been working in federal court for two decades, so the shift didn’t slow us down. We’ve defended service members at every rank on charges including sexual assault (Articles 120, 120b, 117a, 120c), child exploitation (Article 134), fraud, violent crimes, child abuse (Article 119b), officer misconduct (Article 133), and wartime offenses like desertion. Our work during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars gave us insight into how operational stress shapes these cases. You get two senior trial lawyers for the price of one.
How We Work: No Middlemen, No Surprises
When you call, you reach Keith Scherer or Greg Gagne directly. No intake staff, no call screeners, no chatbots. We use flat fees: one price per stage, covering all calls, emails, review, research, and strategy work for that phase. Travel costs are separate and spelled out in advance. The structure is simple because the focus should be on your defense, not your bill.
Call a MacDill AFB UCMJ Lawyer Now
If you are facing UCMJ charges or a court-martial at MacDill AFB, call us at 800-319-3134 for a free consultation. We have defended service members at MacDill and other installations across the Southeast and worldwide for more than 20 years.