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.