Fort Sill covers 94,000 acres of prairie and scrubland in southwest Oklahoma, just north of Lawton. The post sits at the edge of the Wichita Mountains, with flat training ranges extending south and west toward the Red River and the Texas border.
Fort Sill is the home of the Field Artillery. Every Army cannon crew, fire direction officer, and forward observer trains here. The mission is indirect fire: delivering high-explosive rounds on targets miles away using math, weather data, and radio coordination between ground units and gun crews. The post runs the Army’s only Field Artillery School, where soldiers learn to operate howitzers, rocket systems, and the targeting software that makes modern artillery work.
Fort Sill also hosts the Army’s Air Defense Artillery School, which trains soldiers to operate missile systems that protect ground forces from aircraft, drones, and incoming rockets. The Patriot missile system, the Avenger platform, and short-range air defense weapons are all taught here. Between the two schools, Fort Sill cycles thousands of soldiers through training each year, from initial entry to advanced leadership courses.
Lawton borders the main gate. It’s a military town that depends almost entirely on the post’s economy. The population is around 90,000. Oklahoma City is 90 miles northeast. Wichita Falls, Texas is 50 miles south. The post is isolated compared to installations near major cities, which concentrates off-post activity in Lawton and the surrounding area.
Recent cases involving Fort Sill soldiers include convictions for abusive sexual contact and strangulation in the barracks, sexual abuse of another soldier, sexual assault and child abuse by an NCO, and first-degree rape. Multiple sexual assault allegations have generated sustained command attention. A reservist with an AWOL charge was arrested at gunpoint by U.S. Marshals in her Texas home while breastfeeding her infant daughter: kicked-in door, armed entry, two weeks in custody before release. A soldier was arrested in the death of a fellow soldier in Lawton. Like other Army installations, the pattern at Sill includes soldier-on-soldier violence, child exploitation, sexual assault within the barracks, and AWOL cases that escalate to armed federal arrests.
Fort Sill and Us
We’ve defended soldiers at Fort Sill for more than twenty years. During the Global War on Terror, Fort Sill operated as a confinement facility and clearinghouse for AWOL and desertion cases. We worked with the facility and legal office there several times a week for years, handling cases that ranged from straightforward unauthorized absence to soldiers who fled deployments and faced years of confinement.
We have also litigated the range of more serious cases at Fort Sill: sexual assault, CSAM, domestic violence, fraud, larceny, violent crime. We’ve handled them across every stage of the process, from CID investigation through court-martial and administrative separation. Our experience defending soldiers across every major Army installation gives us the institutional knowledge to recognize patterns, anticipate command responses, and identify leverage points that inexperienced counsel miss.
One case: We represented a soldier charged with possession of a large volume of child sexual abuse material. He had consented to the search and seizure. He had confessed. When the case got to trial, we got all of the evidence suppressed. We knew the rules better than the prosecution, found novel procedural angles they hadn’t anticipated, and outflanked them at every motion hearing. The evidence never reached the court. He walked. He received an honorable discharge.
Another case: Our client was a single mother, an NCO approaching retirement eligibility, who was prosecuted for BAH fraud. She pleaded guilty at court-martial and avoided a punitive discharge. The unit then moved to separate her administratively. We took the case to a separation board and won. She retired with an honorable discharge and kept her benefits.
Fort Sill and OSTC
The Office of Special Trial Counsel operates independently from installation command structures. OSTC attorneys report through their own chain to the Secretary of the Army, not to Fort Sill commanders or convening authorities. That structural independence matters because it removes the pressure to prosecute cases for political or institutional reasons rather than evidentiary ones.
- OSTC’s stated mission: “To seek justice by independently and equitably evaluating criminal allegations and effectively prosecuting cases warranted by the evidence in the best interests of the Army community, while maintaining honest, clear communication with victims, the Army, and the public in order to promote trust in the military justice system.”
- Their vision statement: “A military prosecution unit worthy of America’s trust; committed to wise, informed judgment; skilled case management; and superior advocacy by professional, ethical, and engaged legal teams that continuously improve and actively pursue justice in accordance with Constitutional due process.”
We hold them to both statements. Our job is to ensure those principles apply to the accused, not just to victims and the institution.
What OSTC prosecutes at Fort Sill:
Articles 117a (retaliation), 118 (murder), 119 (manslaughter), 119a (vehicular manslaughter), 120 (sexual assault), 120a (stalking), 120b (rape of a child), 120c (other sexual misconduct), 125 (kidnapping), 128b (domestic violence), 130 (stalking), 132 (frauds against the United States), and 134 (general article covering crimes like child pornography and distribution of intimate images).
How the new system changes the defense calculation:
Most defense counsel viewed the OSTC restructuring as a loss: centralized prosecution, judge-alone sentencing, institutional focus on raising conviction rates. We saw it as access to prosecutors who answer to evidence instead of battalion commanders and the media, and who won’t let a bad case go to trial just to appease an accuser.
OSTC counsel at Fort Sill don’t prosecute to satisfy local command or generate favorable statistics. They prosecute when they believe the evidence will win at trial. That focus creates leverage traditional trial counsel rarely had. When we present exculpatory evidence during the investigation or at the Article 32 hearing, OSTC evaluates it without the institutional pressure to push forward regardless of merit.
While holding back favorable evidence for trial can be the right move, that’s rarely the case these days. We don’t prefer to sit back and wait for our client’s case to be referred to trial, pick up the trial fee, and then present the good evidence we’ve had all along. The key is knowing what evidence to present, when to present it, and how to frame it so dismissal or reduction becomes the correct outcome rather than a concession.
How We Work: Two Examples
We defend all of the offense types noted above, from sexual assault and domestic violence to murder, stolen valor, and espionage. The sections below use Article 134 (CSAM) and Article 120b (sexual abuse of a child) to illustrate our approach: how we analyze evidence, challenge prosecution theories, and build defenses in cases where most people assume guilt is inevitable.
Article 134: Child Sexual Abuse Material Cases
Just the Tips
Most CSAM cases start with a CyberTipline report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Electronic service providers are required by federal law to report suspected CSAM. NCMEC forwards reports to law enforcement with image descriptions, hash values, and IP addresses. Other cases begin when repair technicians, witnesses, or investigators discover contraband during unrelated investigations.
Demand —> Supply
Each image is evidence of real sexual abuse against a real child. Possession sustains demand that motivates production of this material. Offenders operate in closed online communities where members exchange or purchase access using encrypted platforms. Subscribers contribute money or cryptocurrency for input on material produced. For victims whose images circulate worldwide, harm continues each time files are viewed.
Investigators Search Everything
Investigators seize every device capable of storing digital files: computers, phones, tablets, game consoles, cameras, external drives, routers, and cloud-connected devices. Hash values are digital fingerprints created through cryptographic algorithms. Two files produce identical hash values only if every byte matches. This allows law enforcement to identify known CSAM with reliability greater than DNA matching.
Proof
Finding CSAM on a device isn’t enough. The government must prove the accused knowingly possessed it: both control and awareness. Investigators review search histories, peer-to-peer software, cloud storage, messaging apps, and file-sharing services. They look for documents, activity, or photos linking the accused to the device.
Defense
Challenge proof of possession. Determine who had device access, whether files were saved intentionally or automatically, and whether the accused deleted or reported material upon discovery. Look into user activity on the device before and after the files were accessed to see who might have been at the keyboard. Hash values are powerful but not infallible, so verify they were properly generated and files weren’t corrupted. Review whether search warrants exceeded scope or investigators relied on NCMEC summaries without independent verification.
Look for evidence of knowledge, or lack thereof. Were files stored in obvious folders or hidden directories? Were filenames suggestive or randomly generated? Digital forensic experts determine whether files were intentionally accessed, timestamps manipulated, and whether malware could have created material without the accused’s knowledge.
Punishment for Someone Else’s Crimes
NCMEC files often include police reports, forensic interviews, and victim impact statements from original abuse investigations. These reports are hearsay. The accused in a possession case has no connection to that original offense. The government cannot use third-party investigations to prove knowledge, intent, or motive without producing a live witness for cross-examination.
Excluding these materials limits the government’s sentencing case. Without victim-impact evidence, prosecutors are restricted to forensic facts: file counts, timestamps, device data. Defense counsel should move early to exclude these attachments.
Where there is a plea deal, a common stipulation is that these reports will be admissible during the sentencing phase.
Consequences and Defense Philosophy
Conviction carries severe penalties: dishonorable discharge, loss of veterans benefits, mandatory sex offender registration, confinement up to thirty years, and lifelong restrictions on residence, employment, and community involvement. Every person accused has the right to bold, thorough, and skillful representation. The defense attorney ensures constitutional rights are protected, the government meets its burden, and sentencing (if there’s a conviction) reflects proportionality. This requires stoicism, technical precision, and commitment to fairness regardless of the nature of the charges and evidence.
Age Determination
“Tanner staging” is a medical scale describing physical development during puberty. Prosecutors use it to support expert testimony that people depicted in the files are under 18. Medical experts compare visible features in images to developmental stages. But Tanner staging was designed for clinical use in living patients, not photographs. Lighting, posture, angles, and ethnic variation distort features. Puberty onset varies widely. Courts increasingly recognize Tanner opinions carry significant error margins.
When Tanner staging is cited, cross-examine experts on methodology, inter-observer reliability, and absence of direct examination. Most acknowledge that outside clinical settings, Tanner analysis offers only general estimates. Highlighting limitations reduces certainty of government’s age-identification evidence.
Article 120b: Sexual Abuse of a Child
How child cases differ from adult cases
Consent doesn’t exist as a defense when the victim is a minor. The law treats anyone below a certain age as legally incapable of consenting to sexual contact. It’s a form of strict liability. This eliminates the primary defense available in adult sexual assault cases.
Single-witness cases
A child’s testimony alone can support conviction. No corroborating evidence is required. The defense must attack the reliability of that testimony, which follows two paths.
First: challenge the interview process. Children’s memories are vulnerable to suggestion from parents, counselors, investigators, or therapists. The defense dissects forensic interviews to identify leading questions, breaks in protocol, or contamination that rendered the child’s account unreliable.
Second: prove the allegation is false. Sometimes children lie under external pressure: custody disputes, family conflict, fear of punishment for unrelated conduct. The defense exposes falsehoods through patient, controlled cross-examination that reveals inconsistencies without appearing to attack the child. The goal is guiding the panel to see the lie through meticulous questioning, not confrontation, even when the witness lies.
Understanding the limits of medical evidence
Doctors describe findings as “consistent with abuse” far more often than “diagnostic of abuse.” The first is common and debatable. The second is rare. “Consistent with” means the injury could have been caused by abuse or by accident, pre-existing conditions, or developmental variation. The defense uses medical experts (usually government-funded) to present differential diagnoses: alternative explanations for the same physical findings.
“But she looks __”
The “mistake of fact as to age” defense applies when the accused genuinely and reasonably believed the person was of legal age. Belief must be grounded in facts: appearance, statements, context. Meeting someone in a bar that checks IDs might support the defense. Hearing about homework or parental restrictions undercuts it.
The Cost of Hiring a Lawyer
Q: Why do law firms hide their prices?
Because transparency kills leverage. If you see the fee before calling, you might compare it to competitors or decide you can’t afford it. Firms want you on the phone first, to get you deep into a conversation about your case, your fear, and your future, before money comes up.
What happens during that “free” consultation?
They’re building a profile.
- Rank
- Time in service
- Dependents
- Proximity to retirement
They’re calculating your housing allowance, medical coverage, tax advantages, SGLI benefits, and professional military education credits. They’re adding commissary savings, clothing allowance, even access to the shoppette. By the time they’re done, they’ve constructed a number that represents everything you stand to lose: hundreds of thousands in benefits, and well over a million when retirement is factored in.
Then comes the comparison. Their fee vs the $1.2 million. They’re showing you that it’s not spending … it’s saving! The emotional math makes the fee seem reasonable, even inevitable.
Is the tactic dishonest?
The risk calculation is real. Conviction can end your career, benefits, and future. Competent defense is a small investment compared to what you stand to lose. The math works. But the performance is condescending. You already know what you stand to lose. You don’t need a lawyer performing arithmetic with your fear to convince you to hire them. It’s beneath the dignity of anyone claiming to serve soldiers.
Our fees:
- Initial/investigative stage: $6,500
- Article 32 preliminary hearing: $10,000–$12,000
- General court-martial trial: $25,000
- Administrative separation board: $15,000–$20,000
Travel costs (flights, lodging, car rental) are billed separately and disclosed before you sign.
Their fees:
- Initial/investigative stage: $4,500 to $8,000
- Article 32 preliminary hearing: $8,000 to $20,000
- General court-martial trial: $15,000 to over $100,000
- Administrative separation board: $12,000 to $50,000
Trial fee gimmicks to watch out for:
Some firms cap on-site days included in their trial fee. Days beyond that limit get billed at thousands per day. Some firms define a trial “day” as eight hours and charge hourly rates for time beyond that. Some exclude travel days from trial fees and bill them separately.
Our trial fee covers all work, all time on-site, all travel time. Set in advance. If the trial runs longer than expected, no additional charges.
Why Hire Civilian Counsel Before TDS Gets Assigned
TDS attorneys are competent and dedicated, but they work within a system that limits when and how they can act. TDS won’t assign an attorney until charges are preferred or an Article 15 is offered.
We don’t. When a soldier calls us during an investigation, we start immediately. No waiting for assignment. No waiting for charges. And no more sitting alone with the weight of an investigation you don’t understand while the government builds its case unopposed. If you don’t hire an attorney, you’ll be in total darkness while CID builds its case. Investigators take statements, seize evidence, interview witnesses, guided by OSTC with an eye towards prosecuting you. Meanwhile, you have no one communicating with investigators, no one advocating to command, no one identifying exculpatory evidence, and no one presenting that evidence to decision-makers.
Without an attorney, you have no one answering questions, no one explaining what’s happening, no one addressing anxiety, no one talking to family, no one providing updates. On one side: confusion, ambiguity, and waiting. On the other: the government is actively building a case.
So hiring an attorney is a step towards bringing things back into balance. We engage during the investigation. We communicate with CID, command, and OSTC. We identify favorable evidence and present it to the people who decide whether to prefer charges. We answer questions, explain the process, and provide regular updates. We talk to family members who need to understand what’s happening. We restore balance when the government has momentum and the soldier has none.
The firms that hide their fees and calculate what you stand to lose focus only on the back end: what happens if your case goes badly. They don’t talk about the value you could get up front: early engagement, communication with investigators and command, presenting exculpatory evidence before charges are preferred. They don’t talk about that value because they don’t provide it. They take the fee and act as standby counsel, staying silent just like you, waiting for the case to become official before they start working. That’s not defense. That’s a billing arrangement.
Free Case Review for Fort Sill Service Members
If you are stationed at Fort Sill and facing investigation, court-martial, or administrative action under the UCMJ, call us at 800-319-3134 for a confidential case review. We have defended soldiers at Fort Sill for more than twenty years, including during the years when the installation operated as a confinement facility and clearinghouse for AWOL and desertion cases during the Global War on Terror. We continue to defend soldiers facing the charges that generate headlines out of Sill: sexual assault, child exploitation, domestic violence, strangulation, rape, and AWOL.