Most service members facing serious charges have no idea that the government is required to fund expert witnesses for the defense team. If an expert is necessary for you to mount an adequate defense, the government has to pay for one. Understanding how that works, and what happens when the government refuses to do the right and lawful thing, is one of the most important things you can learn about how serious courts-martial are defended. What the Government Brings to the Fight OSTC doesn’t go to trial without experts. In Article 120 cases they use forensic psychologists to address victim behavior, memory, and trauma response. In drug cases they use toxicologists. In CSAM cases they use digital forensics examiners, and in cases involving child victims, […]

An RCM 706 board, called a sanity board in practice, is a formal mental health evaluation ordered when there is reason to question whether the accused had the mental capacity to be held responsible for the alleged conduct, or whether the accused is currently competent to stand trial. Done right, it is one of the most powerful tools in court-martial defense. The board examines four questions.  The “insanity” defense requires the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the answer to the first and third questions is yes. That is an extremely high standard that is almost never met.  The defense doesn’t apply to personality disorders, nonpsychotic behavioral conditions, or patterns of conduct that are only antisocial. Most accused who undergo a 706 […]

Why Would Anyone Waive an Article 32 Hearing? A high-profile case at Fort Hood has put a rarely-discussed question in front of a lot of people: why would a service member facing serious criminal charges give up the right to an Article 32 preliminary hearing?  Major Blaine McGraw, an Army OB/GYN, faces dozens of allegations of indecent visual recording under Article 120c, five specifications of conduct unbecoming an officer under Article 133, one specification of willful disobedience of a superior officer under Article 90, and one specification of making a false official statement under Article 107 of the UCMJ.  Keith discusses the case and the implications of waiving an Article 32 hearing in the segment below When asked about the waiver, the Army confirmed there […]

Every criminal defense attorney has to deal with the question, “How can you defend those people?” and that’s especially true when it comes to cases involving sex, children, or domestic violence. The question is asked with a tone of condemnation, but it unintentionally gets at an important truth. “Those people” and “those cases” require a certain type of lawyer, and it has nothing to do with being soulless. Note, too, that the question presumes guilt, something a criminal defense lawyer doesn’t do. The defense of sexual assault and domestic violence prosecutions demands a unique synthesis of skills combining the strategic acumen of a trial lawyer with the psychological awareness of a forensic expert. This field, which has made up the bulk of our casework for […]

Defending individuals accused of crimes against children, from physical or sexual abuse to Shaken Baby Syndrome, CSAM possession, enticement, or indecent communication, is the most morally and emotionally demanding field in criminal law. To meet the constitutional duty of effective representation, a defense has to approach these cases with expertise and psychological composure.  For more than 20 years, our firm has defended service members accused of the most stigmatizing UCMJ violations. We have handled every variety of case under Articles 119b, 120b, and 134, including CSAM possession, production, and enticement. Psychological Compartmentalization The first requirement is the ability to evaluate disturbing evidence with professional detachment. Evidence Review This work demands exposure to deeply disturbing material: explicit recordings, medical examiner reports describing traumatic injuries, and images […]

Our Flat-Fee Philosophy: Why Your Defense Deserves Financial Clarity When your career, your name, and your freedom are at risk, you need the best defense you can get. If you can hire a civilian military lawyer, cost is a key factor and you deserve to know it before you call. Hourly billing punishes the people who can least afford it and pays the lawyer more for taking longer to do the same work. A flat fee paid by the stage of the case lets the lawyer focus on the work instead of tracking time. Cases move through predictable stages, and the fee for each stage should be set in advance. Gagne, Scherer & Associates is transparent about what it costs to hire our former JAGs […]

The difference between our cross-examination style and the traditional aggressive approach comes down to an old saying: pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. We’re the pigs. We take what we need from the witness (the key admissions, the small contradictions, the gaps in memory) and we lock them down. We get fat on facts that win acquittals. We don’t overreach. The hog is the bully cross-examiner. The sledgehammer lawyer. The “destroy-mode” performer who’s too loud, too greedy, and too focused on the show. They take excessive risks, cross ethical lines, and alienate the judge and panel. That’s why they, and their clients, get slaughtered when the verdict comes back. Our goal isn’t to win a jousting match. It’s to win the case through a relaxed […]