Naval Base San Diego occupies more than 1,600 acres along the eastern edge of San Diego Bay. It is home to the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s surface combatant forces and serves as the main port for more than 50 ships, including destroyers, cruisers, and amphibious assault vessels. The base also supports dozens of tenant commands, training units, and shore activities that sustain fleet operations across the Pacific. Pier-side maintenance, logistics, and deployment preparation continue year-round, with aircraft and personnel moving through nearby Naval Air Station North Island and Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. Together, these facilities form the core of the Navy’s western seaboard operations.
San Diego’s naval presence extends well beyond the main base. Commands at Coronado, Point Loma, and North Island handle aviation, submarine, and special warfare missions, while the 32nd Street complex houses destroyer squadrons and amphibious groups. The region also includes the Southwest Regional Maintenance Center, Naval Medical Center San Diego, and the headquarters of Commander, Naval Surface Force Pacific. Thousands of sailors and civilian employees work across these commands, supported by an extensive logistics and training infrastructure that connects directly to Pearl Harbor, Yokosuka, and other Pacific bases.
Note: Our firm focuses exclusively on military personnel facing UCMJ or administrative action. We do not represent dependents, veterans, or civilian contractors.
The city surrounding the base is deeply tied to the fleet. Off-duty incidents in downtown San Diego, Pacific Beach, and the Gaslamp Quarter frequently draw command attention, and coordination with local law enforcement is routine. Allegations involving alcohol, domestic disputes, or sexual misconduct often originate off base but are investigated by NCIS and prosecuted under the UCMJ. Administrative separation boards and court-martial cases are handled through the Region Legal Service Office and the Southwest Judicial Circuit, which is the busiest in the Navy. The concentration of ships, air units, and transient personnel makes San Diego a focal point for military justice throughout the Pacific Fleet.
An Office of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC) operates at Naval Base San Diego as part of the Navy’s independent prosecution system. The OSTC reports directly to the Secretary of the Navy and is staffed by Special Trial Counsel, hand-selected judge advocates with exclusive authority to evaluate serious allegations. Their task is to determine, without command involvement, whether evidence supports referral to court-martial.
The OSTC prosecutes “covered offenses,” including Articles 117a, 118, 119, 119a, 120, 120a, 120b, 120c, 125, 128b, 130, 132, and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These statutes address offenses such as murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and the wrongful distribution of intimate images. Because the Southwest Circuit handles more contested trials than any other Navy region, the San Diego OSTC office manages a steady flow of high-level prosecutions and coordinates closely with NCIS and fleet legal commands.
With the OSTC’s local authority and the high volume of serious cases, service members stationed in San Diego face a complex legal environment that calls for strong defense representation. Experience with San Diego’s fleet structure, its legal offices, and the OSTC process is critical when the outcome of a case depends on navigating both the command system and an independent prosecutorial authority.
California: Our Home Away From Home
San Diego has no shortage of civilian military lawyers. Many of them are former JAGs who know their way around the UCMJ and handle military cases on a steady basis. Some are retired officers who spent most of their careers in staff or supervisory roles and opened small practices after leaving active duty. Others left the service after a few years of experience and chose to stay in the area for the weather and the lifestyle. They are part of the military community and often remain close to the bases they once served. For service members needing help with straightforward matters, those lawyers are capable and familiar with the system.
Courtroom experience is another matter. Not every lawyer who has worn the uniform has spent time in contested trials or serious felony-level cases. Many of the cases that reach the Office of Special Trial Counsel involve complex evidence, expert witnesses, and high-stakes cross-examination. Those are not administrative actions or paperwork disputes. They require a defense lawyer who has lived inside a courtroom for years, not one who visits occasionally.
Our firm focuses exclusively on UCMJ defense and handles cases that other lawyers would rather avoid. These include the most serious offenses investigated and prosecuted under the new OSTC system. We represent service members across all branches, including the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, throughout the San Diego military complex and beyond. One of us has lifelong ties to California: born in San Francisco, trained at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, with family in Newport Beach, and years spent along the coast from Laguna Beach to Point Arena. We know the region well.
But most UCMJ work today can be managed remotely. Investigations, evidence review, and witness meetings can be conducted securely without being in the same city. Even when all the lawyers are located on the same base, most preparation is done by phone, email, or secure file transfers. If a case proceeds to court-martial, in-person representation becomes necessary, and travel costs apply. That is part of any serious defense effort. But in most cases, the cost difference between hiring a local lawyer and a national firm with deep experience is small compared to the outcome that experience can produce.
When you hire our firm, you are retaining two senior court-martial lawyers with more than two decades of military and federal trial work. You get that level of representation for a flat fee and direct access from start to finish. For cases handled under the OSTC system, experienced, trial-tested defense counsel is the strongest investment you can make.
Strategy and Execution (Art 134 Digital Cases)
Possession Is Not Proof
Finding CSAM on a device does not prove the accused knowingly possessed it. Defense begins by determining who had access to the computer or phone, whether files were saved deliberately or through automatic downloads, and whether the accused deleted or reported the material immediately upon discovery. Shared devices, unsecured networks, and malware can all create reasonable doubt about knowing possession.
Hash Values Are Fallible
Hash values serve as digital fingerprints, but they are not infallible. Defense counsel must verify that hash values were generated correctly, that files were not corrupted or altered during forensic imaging, and that the matching process was executed without error. Mistakes in chain of custody, analytical software, or investigator assumptions can undermine the government’s entire case. Defense counsel also examines whether the search warrant exceeded its authorized scope and whether investigators accepted NCMEC summaries without conducting independent verification.
Knowledge Is the Battlefield
The central question in every CSAM case is whether the accused knew what the files depicted. Were they stored in obvious folders with suggestive filenames, or were they buried in obscure system directories with randomly generated labels? Did the accused access the files repeatedly, or did they appear once and never open again? The government must prove wrongful possession beyond a reasonable doubt, and knowledge is where that burden often fails.
Digital Forensic Experts Are Non-Negotiable
Digital forensic experts can determine whether files were accessed intentionally, whether timestamps were manipulated, and whether remote-access software or malware placed the material on the device without the accused’s knowledge. These experts reconstruct what happened on the device, when it happened, and who caused it to happen. Without this analysis, the defense operates blind.
Forensic psychologists assess mental health, trauma history, and cognitive capacity. Their evaluations provide context for sentencing and support arguments for treatment rather than maximum punishment. Both technical and clinical experts are essential, not optional.
Excluding NCMEC
When NCMEC identifies a file as known CSAM, the associated materials often include investigative records from the jurisdiction where the victim was originally identified. These attachments may contain police reports, forensic interviews, or victim impact statements describing the harm suffered by the child depicted in the imagery. Although emotionally powerful, these documents are hearsay.
The accused in a possession case has no connection to the original offense against that child. The government cannot rely on third-party police investigations or victim narratives to prove knowledge, intent, or motive. Such materials fall outside the proper evidentiary scope of a possession prosecution and are inadmissible unless the government produces a live witness subject to cross-examination.
Excluding these materials limits the government’s aggravation case at sentencing. Without victim-impact evidence embedded in NCMEC files, prosecutors are restricted to the forensic facts of the charged possession: file counts, timestamps, and device data. Effective defense counsel moves early to exclude these attachments, preserving the distinction between the accused’s alleged conduct and crimes committed by others.
The Defense Timeline
Defense must begin during the investigation, not after charges are preferred. Early engagement allows counsel to preserve exculpatory evidence, challenge investigative overreach, and frame the case before the government’s narrative hardens. By the time a case reaches the OSTC, the window for shaping outcomes narrows significantly. The best defense is the one that prevents charges from being referred in the first place.
Medical Age Assessment: The Tanner Scale Problem
In CSAM prosecutions, the government must prove the person depicted is a minor. When the victim’s identity is unknown or unavailable, prosecutors turn to medical experts who use the Tanner scale to estimate age based on visible physical development. These experts, typically pediatricians or sexual assault nurse examiners, review images or video stills and compare observable traits like breast development, genital maturation, and body hair distribution to a five-stage classification system created by British pediatrician James Tanner in the 1960s.
The prosecution presents this testimony as scientific certainty. Early-stage development is labeled prepubescent. Mid-stage development is called early adolescence. The implication is clear: if the expert says Tanner stage 3, the jury hears “child.”
Why the science is questionable
Tanner’s scale was designed for clinical evaluation of living patients in controlled medical settings, not for analyzing photographs or video frames. The methodology depends on direct observation, patient history, and sometimes laboratory testing. Applying it to static images taken under unknown conditions introduces variables that render conclusions unreliable.
Lighting distorts appearance. Camera angles flatten or exaggerate proportions. Ethnic background affects hair distribution and body structure. Genetics, nutrition, and environmental factors cause wide variation in puberty onset, with some individuals reaching full maturation at 14 and others still developing at 19. A teenager can appear younger or older depending on factors entirely unrelated to actual age.
Even among trained clinicians examining the same patient in person, inter-observer reliability is weak. When the examination is reduced to reviewing pixelated images without context, the margin of error expands further. Courts increasingly recognize that Tanner-based opinions offered in CSAM cases are estimates at best, guesses at worst.
How the defense attacks it
Cross-examination exposes the methodology’s fragility. The expert must admit the scale was never intended for photographic analysis. They must acknowledge that without direct examination, medical history, or laboratory results, their opinion rests on visual impression alone. They must concede that ethnic variation, lighting conditions, and image quality all affect their conclusions.
Defense counsel presses on inter-observer reliability. Would another expert reach the same conclusion? How often do experts disagree when assessing the same image? The answer is often enough to matter.
The defense also challenges the certainty of the testimony. Experts frequently retreat to qualifiers like “consistent with” or “appears to be,” which are not the same as “is.” Highlighting these limitations strips the government’s age-identification evidence of its perceived scientific authority and forces the panel to see it for what it is: an educated guess with built-in error.
Why a case that depends on age-staging is good for the defense
When the government’s case depends on Tanner staging, the defense has ground to fight on. Juries trust medical experts until those experts admit the limits of their methods. A strong cross-examination turns confidence into doubt, and doubt is the difference between conviction and acquittal.
Lawyers, Fees, and Comms
Q: What’s the catch with some “flat” trial fees?
Some firms quote what sounds like a single flat fee for trial, but the fine print caps that fee at a few days of court time. After that, additional days are billed separately, often at $3,000 or more per day, or charged by the hour. What looks like a flat fee is really a minimum fee that keeps growing once trial begins.
Our firm’s approach is different. When we quote a trial fee, that’s the full fee for the entire trial, whether it lasts two days or ten. It does not change. Travel days are included, and our time in transit is covered, not billed. The only separate costs are actual travel expenses such as flights, lodging, and rental car. That structure keeps the agreement honest and predictable. There are no hidden charges, no asterisks, and no new bills mid-trial.
Q: Why doesn’t your firm like hourly billing?
We have many reasons, but here are three, all falling under the concept of incentive misalignment:
- The slower the lawyer works, the more they earn. Clients sense that, even when the lawyer is honest.
- A lawyer who can do in five hours what another needs twenty for earns less under hourly billing.
- Multiple lawyers “reviewing” the same document or “strategizing” together feels like padding to clients.
We prefer a flat-fee approach because it
- Re-aligns incentives toward results rather than hours.
- Promotes open communication: clients can contact us without worrying about getting nickel-and-dimed for every call, text, or emails.
- Creates clarity: everyone knows the commitment, the cost, and what’s included.
Real Lawyers, Real Contact
When you visit this site, you won’t see chat windows or phone-bank icons. The people you contact are the lawyers you’ll actually work with. We built the firm around direct communication: plain talk, immediate access, and collaboration. When you call, text, or email, it goes straight to us.
Why Our Background Works Well for Sailors
We are former Air Force JAGs, not Navy. We’re direct about this because it helps your defense. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is uniform: the same law applies to every service member, regardless of branch. For more than twenty years, we’ve defended Sailors under the UCMJ at commands from Norfolk to Yokosuka, and we understand Navy operations, investigative culture, and the institutional pressure that shapes how cases develop.
We don’t claim time at sea. We show respect for the Navy by staying professional, prepared, and ready to defend Sailors when their careers are on the line. Our position outside the Navy chain of command is a tactical advantage, not a liability.
Why outside counsel matters in the Navy
The Navy has a reputation for moving cases through the system with extreme and sneaky institutional and command pressure.
NCIS investigators are skilled at framing interviews as informal conversations while building criminal cases. Legal officers sometimes encourage Sailors to “cooperate,” “get it over with,” or “take responsibility” before the sailor understands what’s at stake or what rights they’re giving up. By the time a sailor realizes they need help, the damage is often done.
We intervene before that happens. When we enter a case, the institutional push stops.
- NCIS knows they’re dealing with experienced counsel who won’t tolerate bluffing or procedural shortcuts.
- Command knows the sailor is represented and that attempts to bypass counsel will be documented and challenged.
- OSTC knows they’re facing attorneys who understand their process, speak their language, and won’t be intimidated by the weight of the Navy’s resources.
Our external position gives us the freedom to challenge unlawful command influence, investigative overreach, and procedural violations without the career consequences that uniformed counsel might face. We don’t rotate to a new billet in two years. We don’t answer to the same chain of command as the prosecutors. We work for the sailor, and only the sailor.
The Navy tries to bypass civilian counsel early and often
One of the most common tactics we see is the Navy’s attempt to resolve cases at the command level before civilian counsel gets involved. We see this more in the Navy than any other service.
This happens through pressure to accept non-judicial punishment, agree to administrative separation, or provide statements during “informal” counseling sessions. The message is always the same: cooperate now, and it will go easier. Resist, and it will get worse.
That message is a trap. Once a sailor waives their rights or makes a statement, the case becomes harder to defend. Once they accept NJP or sign separation paperwork, the consequences are permanent. The Navy counts on Sailors not knowing their options, not understanding the fallout ahead of time, and not having access to counsel who can stop the process before it becomes irreversible.
We don’t let that happen. When a sailor calls us during an investigation or before a command disciplinary hearing, we step in immediately. We notify NCIS, the command, and the legal office that the sailor is represented. We stop informal interviews. We review proposed charges and separation paperwork. We engage with the chain of command and the OSTC to shape how the case is handled, not just react to decisions already made. If necessary, we employ countermeasures like turning down Mast and demanding trial.
The earlier we’re involved, the more options the sailor has. The longer the Navy controls the process without opposition, the fewer options remain.
No Charge for the Call or Consultation
If you’re a Sailor stationed in San Diego 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 Sailors across the fleet for over twenty years and know how to stop the Navy’s institutional momentum before it crushes your career. Don’t wait until the damage is done. Call now and speak directly with the attorneys who will defend you.