Sex Offender Registration Avoided

In certain exceptional circumstances, a strategically negotiated plea bargain can be the most prudent course of action for a client. As natural litigators, our instinct often drives us to fight every battle with unwavering determination. However, it’s crucial to recognize that litigation is not just about winning each skirmish—it’s about securing the best possible outcome in the broader context of the case. No trial outcome is ever guaranteed; I have experienced victories in cases I expected to lose and losses in cases I was confident I would win. While confidence is an essential trait for any litigator, it is equally vital to approach each case with a balanced, realistic assessment of likely outcomes. This requires us to resist the temptation to overestimate our chances and instead provide clients with a truthful, clear-eyed analysis of their situation. This ability to see the bigger picture distinguishes the “best interest of the client” litigators from those who simply fight for the sake of the fight, though there are times when an aggressive approach is indeed in the client’s best interest.

With this perspective in mind, I am proud to share a recent success from the Law Office of Will M. Helixon in a highly contested general court-martial. Our client, an E8 and former first sergeant, was facing a staggering array of charges: five specifications under Article 120 (including three counts of sexual assault and two of abusive sexual contact), two specifications under Article 128, two specifications of drunk and disorderly conduct under Article 134, one specification of violating a lawful order under Article 92, and a DUI under Article 113. If convicted on all counts, our client was looking at a maximum of over 108 years of confinement, a mandatory dishonorable discharge, and lifelong sex offender registration.

?We were brought onto the case just weeks before trial, and while a continuance was granted, we had only two months to prepare. During that time, we conducted exhaustive interviews with all witnesses related to the sexual assault allegations. Our analysis suggested that we had a strong chance of securing an acquittal on one of the sexual assault charges, but the likelihood of conviction on the abusive sexual contact charges was high, and the remaining sexual assault charges were too close to call. Despite the jury instructions, there was a significant risk that the evidence from the two alleged victims could “spillover,” potentially leading to convictions on multiple charges.

?The remaining charges—DUI, disorderly conduct, and other minor offenses—were clearly overreaching attempts by the government to bolster their case. These charges had already been addressed through a GOMOR, a Relief for Cause NCOER, and a QMP Board, and were based on incidents that had either been resolved years prior or were simply irrelevant to the central issues at hand.

With the trial approaching, and recognizing the substantial risks involved, I initiated discussions with the government about a potential plea agreement. My sole non-negotiable condition was that our client would plead “not guilty” to all registerable offenses. Everything else was on the table. After intense negotiations, we reached an agreement: our client would plead guilty to the DUI, a drunk and disorderly charge, and two Article 128 offenses, with one being constructively referred. In exchange, we accepted a confinement sentence of 18 to 24 months and a Bad Conduct Discharge.

?As a defense team, we evaluated the outcome of this agreement as if it had been the result of a fully contested trial. Unanimously, we agreed that if this had been the trial’s outcome, we would have been celebrating in the parking lot—a clear indication of the success of the plea bargain.

?In the end, while our client’s military career was irrevocably altered, he avoided the devastating consequences of sex offender registration and sexual assault convictions. With 18 months of confinement, he can still rebuild his life after the Army, free from the lifelong stigma that could have accompanied a different outcome.

?This case serves as a powerful reminder that sometimes, the war is won by strategically choosing which battles to fight—and which to tactically concede. An honest and objective assessment of the case is critical, not just for securing a favorable outcome, but for truly serving the client’s best interests.