Case Results

A Norfolk Public Schools teacher hired our firm to represent him for assault and battery charges in Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.  One of his students, who had a history of behavioral issues at school, had threatened another student with a chair in the classroom.  After attempted to verbally de-escalate the situation, our client was assaulted by the student and had to physically restrain the student.  Two days after this incident, the student’s parent went to the magistrate and took out a criminal charge for assault and battery against our client, alleging that our client had viscously physically assaulted their son.  Upon being charged, our client was unfortunately suspended from his teaching job without pay – a suspension which lasted several months until the trial date.  At trial, Mr. McCormack entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of our client, and both the student and his parent testified.  At the conclusion of the prosecution’s evidence, the judge GRANTED our motion to strike the evidence and DISMISSED the assault and battery charge.  Our client will be eligible to return to teaching, and further eligible to have the criminal charge expunged from his record.

Caught up in a bitter custody battle, our client retained the Law Firm of McCormack & McCormack after his mother-in-law took out an assault and battery charge and a preliminary protective order against him, in Virginia Beach.  She claimed that our client had aggressively pushed her aside, in order to get onto her porch.  In addition to the assault and battery charge and the protective order, the court had charged our client with failure to appear at an earlier court date.  At trial, Mr. McCormack entered a not guilty plea on behalf of our client, and the judge heard testimony and evidence in the matters.  During an aggressive and tactical cross-examination of the alleged victim, as well as follow-on testimony from defense witnesses, Mr. McCormack eviscerated the credibility of the alleged victim – proving that her testimony was demonstrably false.  At the conclusion of all evidence and argument, the judge found our client NOT GUILTY of both the assault and battery and the failure to appear charges, and further, despite there being a much lower burden of proof for the civil protective order claim, DISMISSED the protective order.

Our client, an active-duty Navy sailor, was accused of domestic assault and forcible sodomy by his wife.  Our client adamantly denied the accusations against him – accusations which not only would have ended his promising Naval career, but could have landed him in prison for the rest of his life and required his registration as a sex offender.  During preparations for the sodomy preliminary hearing, our client had provided to us numerous documents and details which supported his defense.  In speaking with the prosecutor, this information was relayed to the prosecutor, including details regarding the motivations of his wife to make these accusations.  Thankfully, the prosecutor assigned to the case was very ethical and entirely focused on getting at the truth of the matter – not just aiming for a conviction.  During the prosecutor’s discussions with our client’s wife, it was divulged that her motivation for making the allegations was to get our client kicked out of the Navy.  After further discussion, the prosecutor agreed to NOLLE PROSSE both charges, undoubtedly saving our client’s career.

A Navy Surface Warfare Officer faced UCMJ allegations of fraternization and false official statements. To begin this case, Attorney Robert Canoy had the tall order of convincing “Big Navy” to afford an O-2 probationary officer a Board of Inquiry, despite long-standing Navy policy that probationary officers are not entitled to a BOI. With a robust written submission package, including substantiating documentation and a full legal analysis, Navy Personnel Command reluctantly made the determination to provide this officer a BOI. Attorney Canoy then represented the officer at the BOI, presenting a compelling defense undercutting the misconduct allegations. Ultimately, based upon the case presented by Attorney Canoy, the Board ruled unanimously 3-0 to retain the officer—a decision which is binding upon Navy Personnel Command and will afford this officer the opportunity to continue to serve along with an immediate promotion to O-3.

An Air Force Officer faced felony charges of strangulation, abduction, and domestic assault stemming from an altercation with their spouse while pending divorce proceedings. Charges were brought and pursued despite a considerable delay in reporting the allegations. Attorney Robert Canoy expertly navigated complex legal issues involving an uncooperative witness, a key witness invoking Fifth Amendment protections while testifying at trial, the prosecution’s efforts to introduce inadmissible hearsay, the prosecution’s attempts to violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the prosecutor’s efforts to introduce injury photographs without satisfying the evidentiary foundations required to admit evidence. Ultimately, during trial the Court sided with the Defense’s arguments on these key issues culminating in the Court granting a Defense motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice.

An E-6 Army Staff Sergeant faced Involuntary Administrative Separation with the recommendation from his command that he receive an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service. Attorney Robert Canoy represented our client as the government attempted to prove wrongful use of cocaine and attempted distribution of controlled substances. The Army was represented by two judge advocates who attempted to use all available methods to secure our client’s discharge, including calling the soldier’s commanding officer to recommend discharge with an OTH to the board members. These judge advocates also attempted to misrepresent the purpose of the board, including what they were required to prove to demonstrate that misconduct occurred. This was a very aggressive, uncommon, and legally incorrect method to litigate an administrative board and required aggressive countermeasures. Despite the government counsel’s efforts, after a compelling presentation of defense evidence it was clear that the government’s case theory was incorrect. Government counsel nonetheless argued for the board to separate our client with an OTH. After Mr. Canoy’s closing argument the board voted 3-0 to retain our client in the Army, a decision which is binding under the circumstances of this case.

An E-6 Navy Pettry Officer with 12 years of service was facing Involuntary Administrative Separation with the recommendation from his command that he receive an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service. Attorney Robert Canoy represented our client as the government attempted to prove a violation of Article 112a of the UCMJ for use of THC. Mr. Canoy precision cross examination of the government witnesses and handily demonstrated the holes in the government’s case. After a compelling presentation of defense evidence, the government representative argued to the Board that the government had proven its case, and requested the board separate our client with an Other Than Honorable discharge. Mr. Canoy delivered an outstanding closing argument, proving all of the failures in the Government’s case. After deliberations, the Board returned a 3-0 verdict that no violation of the UCMJ occurred. This result is binding on the Navy separation authority, meaning that our client will remain in the Navy.

Our client was arrested for attempted malicious wounding in Northampton County, after an incident in which he allegedly attempted to run over his neighbor with his vehicle.  Our client and his neighbor had a long-running contentious relationship, and the neighbor contacted the police after the incident while she was walking in the neighborhood.  She alleged that, while walking down the road, he attempted to strike her with his vehicle while traveling at a high rate of speed.  Our client had been previously represented by other defense counsel and had waived his right to a preliminary hearing with the anticipation of potentially pleading guilty to a reduced misdemeanor charge. Upon reaching out to the law firm of McCormack and McCormack, our client vigorously denied the accusations and stated that he wished to plead not guilty and would not accept a guilty plea to a lesser charge. Jarrett McCormack, after a review of the allegations being made by the alleged victim, agreed with the client that the charge never should have been taken out in the first place, and proceeded to plan for a contested bench trial. Due to some prior affiliations between the local judge and our client, Mr. McCormack filed a motion seeking for the trial judge to recuse himself from hearing the trial. This motion was granted, and another judge was assigned to hear the matter. At trial, Mr. McCormack aggressively cross-examined the client’s accuser as well as the arresting deputy and argued to the court that the case never should have made it to trial, citing relevant case law.  After a brief deliberation, the judge returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY for our client.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a U.S. Navy E-7 at an administrative separation board. Our client was accused of bullying, harassing, and mistreating 12 junior sailors within his division over a period of time. After receiving punishment under Article 15, UCMJ (Captain’s Mast), our client was detached for cause from his unit and noticed for administrative separation based upon misconduct, commission of a serious offense. In preparation for this case, we were able to develop credible evidence that certain senior command officials had unlawfully influenced the reporting sources and the investigation overall. Numerous witnesses testified at the Administrative Separation Board, and Mr. Canoy successfully discredited nearly all of the Government’s evidence. After presentation of the Defense’s case and a compelling closing argument the board members unanimously decided by a vote of 3 -0 that there was no misconduct and no basis for separation. Under U.S. Navy policy a finding of no misconduct by a separation board is binding on the separation authority and the servicemember must be retained in the Navy. This will result in our client with nearly 17 years of service being able to continue serving.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a Navy LCDR (O-4) with 19 years of service who was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. The allegation against our client surrounded our client’s post of a video on social media which contained profane language and hand gestures (raised middle fingers). There was no specific Article of the UCMJ which criminalized this behavior, so the Government charged our client with a novel specification of conduct unbecoming an officer. The Government’s charging theory raised significant Constitutional concerns relating to the First Amendment and Due Process notice of criminality. Mr. Canoy aggressively litigated these legal issues in pretrial motions to dismiss, however, the Court denied the defense’s motions and allowed the case to proceed to trial. During the contested trial, Mr. Canoy cross-examined the Government’s witnesses and utilized the military rules of evidence to exclude significant portions of the prosecution’s evidence. After presenting the Defense’s case, the prosecution and Mr. Canoy provided closing arguments and after a quick deliberation our client was fully acquitted.

Attorney Robert Canoy represented a junior military member in Virginia Beach General District Court who was facing a 30 MPH+ over the speed limit reckless driving charge (a class 1 misdemeanor offense) and a traffic citation for driving an unlicensed vehicle. Due to the speed, location, and client’s prior driving record, the client faced a high likelihood of jail time and a permanent criminal record. Understanding the challenges involved in this case, Mr. Canoy worked with the client to do extensive pre-trial preparations to defend the case which ultimately paid off resulting in the Court dismissing both charges entirely, avoiding even a resulting traffic infraction.

A Naval officer was charged with sexual assault of a dependent wife. After the Art. 32 Investigation during which we established significant issues as to the credibility of the complainant, the case was sent to Captain’s Mast on board a Naval ship, at which time the officer was found guilty and reprimanded. Subsequent to the Captain’s Mast, we were able to secure the SETTING ASIDE of the Mast, as well as the termination of administrative separation proceedings. We thereafter assisted our client is securing his promotion which had been held in abeyance due to the charges and our client has been promoted once again.

Navy Captain (0-6) was a squadron commander. During a Preliminary Investigation on allegations of sexual harassment of an E-4, our client provided some false responses to the investigating officer as to what occurred during the incident at a restaurant/bar. After being advised there was a security video of the interaction, and being advised of his Art. 31b rights for false official statement, our client provided accurate answers to the questions. After the interview, our client reportedly requested the IO not to include some of his comments in the report. Our client was detached for cause and taken to Admiral’s Mast for 4 specifications of false official statement as well as conduct unbecoming an officer for endeavoring to impede an investigation. At the administrative separation proceedings (Show Cause Board of Inquiry) our client faced a forced retirement with an Other than Honorable Discharge, as well as a reduction to a reduced paygrade which would result in a significant decrease of retirement income. By a vote of 3-0, the Board recommended our client retire with an Honorable Discharge in his current paygrade of 0-6.