Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home > Results > Abusive Sexual Contact > U.S. v. E-6, United States Army

U.S. v. E-6, United States Army

May 1, 2018

Fort Benning, Georgia

Staff Sergeant (SSG) is accused of sexually touching underage girls in his neighborhood as they wait for the school bus. He is also accused of exposing his penis to another underage girl in the same neighborhood around the same time as the alleged grabbing. SSG purportedly runs around an undercover investigator while indecently fondling his penis. CID immediately apprehends the SSG and takes him to the CID station where they interrogate SSG for nearly two hours. During the interrogation, CID is able to illicit several damning admissions from SSG. CID then interviews several witnesses and accusers who participate in a photographic line-up. Several of the accusers identify the SSG in the line-up.  SSG is subsequently charged with violating Articles 120 (Abusive Sexual Contact), 120c (indecent exposure) and 134 (indecent act).  SSG immediately retains Mr. Mickey Williams to represent him. Mr. Williams represents the client at the Article 32 hearing and is able to persuade the preliminary hearing officer to recommend an alternate disposition other than a Court-Martial. Shortly after receipt of this successful recommendation, the client is arrested for assault against an NCO and for pointing a firearm at another NCO. Because of this subsequent alleged misconduct, the Government proceeds to refer the case to a General Court-Martial. Mickey Williams files several motions to suppress and exclude vital pieces of evidence. Williams was able to suppress a photo lineup, several statements by his client made to CID, and he was able to convince the Court to dismiss specifications. At trial, Williams aggressively cross-examined the Government witnesses and aggressively attacked their credibility. Once the Government rested its case, Williams moved the Court to dismiss the Abusive Sexual Contact charge because the Government was unable to produce any evidence of intent. The Court agreed with Williams.

Case Result

Abusive Sexual Contact DISMISSED and found NOT GUILTY of indecent exposure. ALL Article 120 charges were DISMISSED or client found NOT GUILTY. As a result, NO Sex Offender Registration.

Share This Page:
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms