We’re excited to share the recent success of Attorney Robert Canoy, who played a pivotal role in securing justice for Navy Lt. Cmdr. James Dickerson. This case, which centered around a controversial TikTok video, highlights Canoy’s dedication to upholding the rights of service members.
Lt. Cmdr. Dickerson faced a court-martial for a lighthearted TikTok video that was deemed by his command to be “conduct unbecoming an officer.” The video, which featured Dickerson in uniform lip-syncing to a parody song, sparked an intense legal battle that raised questions about the boundaries of free speech for military personnel.
Despite the Navy’s attempt to prosecute Dickerson, Canoy stood firm in his defense, arguing that the case was an overreach and that the actions of Dickerson did not warrant a federal criminal conviction. His strong advocacy and well-reasoned motions ultimately led to a judge finding Dickerson not guilty.
Canoy’s statement after the trial underscored the importance of this victory: “The right decision was ultimately reached in court on the merits. Despite the Navy’s criminal prosecution for this conduct, we do not hold any ill will towards the command or the Navy for doing what they thought they needed to do to maintain good order and discipline.”
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding social media use in the military and the need for careful consideration before pursuing criminal charges. We’re proud to have such a skilled and principled attorney like Robert Canoy fighting for justice and defending the rights of those who serve.
Congratulations to Robert Canoy on this well-deserved win!
Read the full article here
As a defense attorney, it is really frustrating to see this situation happening time and time again – but once again it has happened to another one of my clients: My client, a Naval officer (0-2E with 19 years of service), was involved in a relationship with an 0-2, both assigned to the same ship. It was one of those relationships that never should have gotten off the ground – a lot of on again-off again issues that found their way on board the ship. Things culminated with an accusation of an assault while my client was on duty, resulting in a command directed investigation. It boiled down to a lot of she said-he said, which is typical; however the female officer provided false information to the investigation officer, as well as to the executive officer concerning the nature of the relationship.
My client was taken to Captain’s Mast for assault (2 specifications) and conduct unbecoming an officer and Detached for Cause from the command. His promotion to 0-3 was also put on hold. Understand, the maximum punishment for assault at a court-martial is 6 months of confinement, in comparison to the maximum punishment for false official statement is 5 years of confinement. Not many officers could avoid serious consequences if they intentionally lied during an official investigation, or intentionally lied to the XO – how about intentionally lying to both of them; for any officer, that could easily be the end of their career, a significant integrity violation, especially for an officer holding a TS-SCI security clearance – except apparently if the officer is a female in today’s environment and is an alleged victim of a domestic assault!
This officer was not taken to Mast, she was not reported for a security clearance incident, she was not DFC’d, she did not get a Letter of Reprimand – none of the above, but she has been selected for advancement to 0-4. My client on the other-hand was directed by PERS to Show Cause for retention based upon allegations of misconduct and substandard performance of duty. Luckily, the government recorder thought it was a wise move to call the LT (alleged victim) to testify telephonically – ended up not being such a wise move for the government. I had a few questions for her – and after my extensive cross examination of her, the government rested its case.
I have represented many clients before Boards of Inquiry, but not once have I seen a board do what this board did – after the government rested, and before I called any witnesses including my client, the board announced that they had heard enough – the government had not proven any misconduct or substandard performance; they voted for NO MISCONDUCT and NO SUSTANDARD PERFORMANCE. Regrettably my client still has the Mast and DFC on his record which we now need to petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records to remove.
Recently, news broke that a Portsmouth homeowner shot a burglar who had broken into his home. While the investigation is still underway, and neither the police nor the man have publicly commented on what happened that day, attorney Jarrett McCormack thinks that it will all come down to whether or not the homeowner felt threatened by the burglar. He further states that “you have a reasonable fear for your family or yourself” during an attempted robbery, so he finds it unlikely that criminal charges will be filed.
However, the fact remains that Virginia does not have a castle doctrine, or “defense of habitation law,” that would permit a homeowner to use deadly force when defending their home. Such a law has been proposed, and defeated, multiple times in the state. Yet, it is also true that the burglar wasn’t seriously or fatally hurt during the incident; while he did have to be taken to the hospital after the shooting, it has since been reported that he is doing fine. It is for this reason that McCormack finds it unlikely that any charges will be filed against the homeowner—as deadly force was not used.
“I think commonwealth attorneys often times shy away from it because when somebody breaks into a house, they’re not the most sympathetic victim,” states McCormack. The fact of the matter is that the man’s home was burglarized at 3 A.M., and he found it necessary to defend himself and his family. The police investigation is still underway, however, so very few details have surfaced about how the burglar broke in, whether or not threats were made and/or what condition the burglar was in before he was shot. For this reason, it is still possible that criminal charges could be filed.
To learn more about this case, read the full story here.
by Jarrett McCormack
