An ACLU press release states:

A former Marine and federal contract investigator is challenging the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) for retaliating against her because she is an effective defense investigator for Marines and sailors in courts-martial and other proceedings.

Carolyn Martin, who served in the Marine Corps for fourteen years in intelligence and administrative capacities, was seized for hours without justification, harassed at her home, and falsely “charged” with a federal felony. A staff judge advocate has unlawfully barred her from the courtroom and defense counsel offices at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot.

“As in civilian cases, justice is always better served in military criminal proceedings when a strong defense case is presented,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “Though the military is entitled to a certain amount of deference in civil liberties matters, it must still abide by core values of fairness and due process in the military justice system. Trying to weaken the defense attorneys’ ability to investigate and challenge charges is not American justice as we know it.”

As a military criminal defense investigator, Martin assists the defense by conducting an independent investigation of the evidence, including interviewing the accused and witnesses, investigating the scene of the alleged crime, and other tasks. She often testifies before military courts, and sometimes assists the defense in post-trial matters and separation hearings. As discussed in the complaint filed in federal court, Martin’s investigations have led to acquittal in a number of courts-martial.

Beginning in 2009, military law enforcement personnel, including an NCIS special agent, harassed and intimidated Martin, including surrounding her with multiple military police vehicles and five armed military police officers, painstakingly searching her car, questioning her about her Defense Intelligence Agency credentials for more than two hours, and ultimately confiscating her DIA credentials. A Navy commander reservist informed Martin that photos of her face and car had been posted on a “be on the lookout” board at the NCIS Field Office at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar earlier this year. An NCIS agent pounded on the front door of her home, and threw a paper at her, saying, “You’ve been served.” The document did not, however, appear to be an authentic notice to appear in court. Martin has never received a court date or further notice regarding the purported charge.

The San Diego ACLU is suing on Martin’s behalf, claiming that the NCIS retaliated against her for First Amendment-protected speech, including engaging in factual investigation and analysis, interviewing clients and witnesses, communicating her findings to her clients and defense attorneys, testifying in proceedings, and related activities, and for interfering with her access to court proceedings. The NCIS is also being charged with violating the Fourth Amendment by its unreasonable seizure, and with Fifth Amendment violations for unreasonably interfering with her ability to obtain employment. Moreover, the order barring Martin from the MCRD courtroom violates the First Amendment.

The San Diego ACLU suit calls for general, compensatory and punitive damages against several NCIS agents, a declaration that the defendants’ conduct is unlawful, and for Martin to be granted injunction against further unlawful activity, as well as costs and fees incurred in this litigation. In addition, the ACLU is filing a motion for preliminary injunction to protect Martin’s First Amendment right to attend court at MCRD. The motion will be heard on October 25, 2010, at 11:00 a.m., in San Diego federal district court, before Judge William Q. Hayes.

The complaint filed on Ms. Martin’s behalf is available here.  Her motion for preliminary injunction is available here.  The brief in support is available here.  A North County Times article about the case is available here.  A Court-Martial Trial Practice blog post about the case is available here.

This is one that we’ll continue to follow closely.

73 Responses to “Civilian military justice defense investigator sues MCRD San Diego SJA and NCIS for interfering with her work”

  1. Anon says:

    The rampant stupidity here is overwhelming! But, it shows creativity in a new form of UCI.

  2. John Harwood says:

    If they hate her this much, she must be very, very good at what she does.

  3. Anonymous says:

    A couple of weeks ago they were going to litigate a UCI motion on the east coast when a different command barred her from base in south carolina during on going case – I can’t see how it can’t be anything but UCI to bar a member of the defense team from a base where witnesses and evidence are located.

  4. Anonymous says:

    By “civilian military justice defense investigator” do we mean “private investigator?” In my limited dealings with private investigators working on military justice cases, I have found them to be first and foremost interested in taking their clients for a ride, billing tens of thousands of dollars for nothing, all the while falsely driving up the hopes of an accused’s family, who is likely footing the bill.

    I for one am not taking this “civilian military justice defense investigator’s” allegations at face value and will anxiously await the full story coming out. If the allegations are true, it is certainly gross Government misconduct. I bet there’s more to the story, though.

  5. John O'Connor says:

    Without necessarily casting aspersions on any of the commenters to this post, I am particularly skeptical of posts by anonymous commenters that assert facts when the poster does not accompany the factual allegation with a link to a credible source.

    Legal analysis by anonymous posters is different, as that analysis will rise and fall on its merits without regard to the identity of the poster. But factual allegations, when not supported by a source, depend to a large degree on the credibility of the speaker, which we don’t have when factual assertion are posted anonymously.

    FWIW, I don’t know jack about this case, so the factual statements posted above might be true for all I know, or they might not be.

  6. Weirick says:

    As a DC I worked on a number of cases with Martin. She was always professional and worked very hard for her clients. I know that she was fair with her billing and provided value for the investigations she did on behalf of her clients. As a DC with no investigative assistance is was a pleasure to work with a zealous and professional investigator.

    That being said, I have no idea about the pending issues. The last time I worked with here was 2006.

  7. Weirick says:

    That should have been “her” not “here” in the last sentence.

  8. Anonymous says:

    This is a dirty laundry grenade-thumb clip off, pin pulled and spoon flying. Combining UCI issues, the unforgivable sin of challenging NCIS competency and professionalism, and what some believe is an improper exercise of command authority is going to be a painful process, regardless of outcome. With the ACLU at the helm of plaintiff’s case, we can be certain that the facts supporting these allegations, if indeed they are true, will be well developed and amplified.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I hate to be reasonable here, but just for a second, does anybody know why a private investigator would have DIA credentials? She’s not a DIA agent, right? She’s private?

  10. Dwight Sullivan says:

    According to the complaint, she did contract work for DIA, performing personnel security investigations.

  11. JWS says:

    I see the NCIS that I grew to despise lo these many years ago has not changed.

  12. ksf says:

    After two full acquittals and a partial acquittal within two months as a TDS counsel back in the summer of 2006, I faced a SOCO complaint from the SJA regarding one of the acquittals (cleared), a Bar complaint from the Trial Counsel in said acquittal (Florida Bar called me a zealous advocate), and had my rights read to me before an Article 32 in a subsequent case for witness tampering per the direction of the aforementioned SJA, which cleared the way for a Chapter 10 for my client.

    Hence, I’m a little biased, but I would tend to believe every word of this investigator’s complaint. I have rarely met a CID or NCIS agent like Gibbs or Di’Nozo. That’s why they are fictional characters on a TV show, and there are SJA’s who are just as bad. I find those SJA’s intimately involved with the military prosecution function (i.e., act as Senior Trial Counsel) hate to lose, and take it personally when they do. And, it floats downstream to the young Captains who continue the cycle because that’s what they were trained to do.

  13. anon says:

    any allegation that by either ommision or commision she was insinuating her DIA creds in futherance of her private work? also interested to know how a SJA barred her from the courtroom when debarment authority vests with the CO.

  14. Gene Fidell says:

    ksf, I am collecting materials on the services’ professional discipline process and ethics rulings in connection with the Military Justice course I teach at Yale. I would be grateful for sanitized copies of the SOCO and Florida bar rulings in your case. My email address is (If other readers have comparable materials I’d welcome them in sanitized form as well.)

  15. Anonymous says:

    That’s exactly what she was doing – gaining access to bases and stations (and even Convening Authorities) by using her DIA/OPM creds, when she was really there in her private capacity. She is not licensed in any state as a PI, but she thinks that her federal contract creds allow her to conduct these investigations.

  16. Any mouse says:

    Well, better nail her hide to the wall. Only the goverment can do whatever it wants to win at all costs. She just might have found something that might actually *gasp* hurt the government’s case and cause the SJA to actually *doublegasp* work harder! C’mon, don’t these defendants know that when you are charged you are guilty??? Everyone should simply take the NCIS/CID/OSI investigations at face value! They would never skew things or lie!!! They’re from the government after all!!! They’re there to help!

  17. ksf says:

    To which “creds” are you referring? Do you mean that she got a base, station, or post decal with her creds, so she uses her POV to drive onto and access post? So, what if a retired civilian JAG attorney used his retiree decal to access post to defend a Soldier at court martial? Should he be indicted because he did not wait the 30 minutes in line to get a temporary access chit since he was acting in his private, not retired, capacity?

  18. Anonymous says:

    Had her “work” on a few cases on the west coast. Her “credentials” were weak and she was easy to shred on cross because she made racial commenst in the brig (caught on audio), and she had no criminial investigative training. She also mislead the people she interviewed, which destroyed her cred. Never lost a case she worked on and had no problem letting her work on the base.

  19. hap ames says:

    why is it cowards allways become anonymous?

  20. Anonymous says:

    What’s the difference between being anonymous and using some geeky pseudonym? Either way it simply means one would prefer not to have their true identity revealed. I think it’s more offensive to not use caps or make obvious spelling errors. Doing all three in one post is unforgivable.

  21. JWS says:

    Doesn’t this beg a question? If she is working on a case, why would she not have full access — especially since she was already cleared? Why would NCIS care — unless their motives were less than honorable?

  22. fwb says:

    “Never lost a case she worked on and had no problem letting her work on the base.”
    Are you in a position to restrict Ms. Martin from coming onto the base?
    If not, why the comments?

  23. ksf says:

    That description sounds no different than any number of CID agents that I have crossed on the stand. I met only a few NCIS agents down in GTMO, but I never got one of them on the stand.

    I agree with JWS. If she was working on a case as an investigator, then she should have full access as part of the defense team. You know, last time I checked CID/NCIS was not in the chain of command where they were stationed because they should be looking for the truth no matter what the command wants.

    Unfortunately, with the new Special Victim’s Prosecutors in the Army and the failure of CID and NCIS to do a thorough investigation out of fear of “victimizing the victim,” our Servicemembers need an investigator who will actually search for the truth in many of these cases. CID and NCIS really have begun to suck at their jobs. Why can’t they videotape interviews with victims? Why can’t they give victim’s a sworn statement and pen and allow them to tell their own story in their own handwriting? My experience has shown that many women AND men are given free reign to cry sexual assault when they engage in regrettable conduct. And the SJA’s look the other way and allow their offices to become PI firms for anyone willing to make a false allegation.

    For those of you Prosecutors who do not believe that your mission is to effectuate the command’s intent at all costs and let the defense counsel do their job, then this does not apply to you. For those of you who think that way and sleep like a baby at night if an innocent man gets convicted, hopefully you will reap the same amount of grace that you have sown when you are falsely accused.

  24. hap ames says:

    I have read all of your comments and ask how many of you are Investigators in or for the Milatary? I am a Private investigator and from 2002 to 2010 worked as part of the Defense for both the Navy and Marine Corps.Until 2009 I had 23 case that never went to Court Martial but were dismissed.I have has NCIS agents on the stand and had them admitt they falsified their reports by changing statements made or just leavin out statements.I was also barred from a base because I brought out the facts of this.Ms Martin I have known for a long period and am aware of her situation and beleive me from first hand knowledge it is clear you either are someone she found out to be one of the ones she got the goods on or you really do not know what your talking about.

  25. fwb says:

    hap, I can assure you I’m not, but I’d like to know if anonymous @ 6:42 am and 3:32 pm is an investigator or a certain SJA.

  26. Anon says:

    Everyone always jumps on CID/NCIS. I’d like for once, just once, have a DC say
    “yep, my guy did it and they discovered it.” Leavenworth and Miramar aren’t fully of hundreds of innocent people railroaded by the mil jus system, sorry conspiracy theorist. Yes, there are win at all cost TC and SJA’s, but you cannot say with a straight face that there aren’t win at all cost DC who do a lot of shady stuff and say “zealous representation” and sleep just fine at night. Let me hear defense bar.

  27. fwb says:

    Someone hit a nerve?

  28. hap ames says:

    maybe we can clairify this arent prosecuters former defense
    and visa versa?

  29. Anonymous says:

    I take it you’ve never had the opportunity to sit through a guilty plea. You know we do those, right? The part where the accused admits to the charged misconduct because he believes he is, and is in fact, guilty? And the part where the military judge reviews the PTA and attached stipulation of fact, which contains some version of those facts discovered by CID/NCIS?

    You know, those proceedings which comprise approximately 90% of all courts-martial?

    I’m no longer a member of the defense bar, but when I was I jumped on CID and NCIS when they had it coming. I did the same as a TC, when they had it coming. Your quabble with DC’s and zealous representation based on your assessment that DC’s do “shady stuff”, whatever that means, isn’t too compelling.

    Fact is investigators are human-subject to all their limitations-and tend to stop digging when they think they’ve got a problem solved to their own personal satisfaction. Only trouble with that is substituting personal satisfaction levels for evidentiary burdens. They’re different, and that’s often what the fight’s about.

  30. sg says:

    I was about to ask–aren’t most of you lawyer-types experienced on both sides of the Military Justice ‘system’? Haven’t the majority of you all served as both prosecutors and defense counsel? I’m not looking for some kumbyaa moment here, I’m honestly intrigued.

  31. ksf says:


    There are win at all cost DC out there, but that is their job: To win. And, when they win innocent people don’t go to jail.

    The problem begins when prosecutors start acting like defense counsel. When that happens, we are all in trouble. The fact that you compare a “win at all cost TC or SJA to a defense counsel troubles me, especially when you also use the term “defense bar.” I would bet that you are an attorney, and I hope you are neither a TC, an SJA, or Military Judge, for that matter. “An SJA and TC’s job is not to win their case and get a conviction. It is to ensure that justice is done.” COL Gary Brockington, Former SJA.

    Defense attorney’s have one job: To ensure that their client is found not guilty, and if found guilty to limit their punishment. They are bound by the rules of Professional Responsibility like TC’s, and if they violate those rules, they should be held accountable.

    Ask LT Ilario Pantano how he felt when he had to spend a boatload of money to hire civilian counsel, then the day after the Article 32 hearing the autopsy was released showing the “victims” were shot in the chest, not the back. The TC’s put their faith in a disgruntled RTO, which, with just a little investigation, they might have decided not to prefer charges in the first place.

    And for those of you who would say, “Well, the system worked. The charges were dismissed.” Yeah, but how would you feel if by the simple act of signing a piece of paper, you were flagged, you were isolated because nobody wants to talk to you, you are now not going to that school that would help you get promoted, your career is put on hold, your TDS lawyer is trying to get you to submit a Chapter 10 so he can deploy, and the cheapest quote from a CDC for your case is $5,000.00?

    And Anonymous at 10:31 p.m. makes a good point. I had approximately 30 guilty pleas as a TDS counsel. I would be happy to send you the transcripts of each court martial where I said, “Yep, my guy did it and they discovered it.” You’re requesting “once, just once.” Well, I can provide you 30 times that amount, and I am one of thousands of former TDS counsel!

  32. ksf says:


    Typically, we are. What bugs the living daylights out of me is when prosecutors act like defense counsel. There is a huge difference, and most lawyer types just want to win.

    I can’t say that I mind so much when TDS counsel act like prosecutors. That’s why their clients hire civilian defense counsel.

  33. soonergrunt says:

    I just couldn’t understand all of the hating on each other going on in this thread. It really does intrigue me.

  34. ksf says:

    Its the same hating that goes on between grunts with regards to collateral damage. A couple of haji’s run into a mosque during prayer time. Some grunts would say blow it up. Other grunts would say, “Don’t too much collateral damage/it will create enemies, etc.” The former would call the latter pansies, and the latter would call the former savages. It is difference of professional opinion.

  35. Anonymous says:

    Typical cross of Martin: “You have no law enforcement training. No. You do not have a CA investigator’s license. No. Even though the law in this state mandates that you both register with that office and have that license? Right. Your business card says you are part of an investigators association? Yes. That consists of you alone? Yes. That you founded. Yes.”

  36. hap ames says:

    I hear you talking about the guilty ones. True I have rejected cases because the defendant is guilty,however how many time have the NCIS or CID gave a report that the defendant is innocent? How many times have charges been brought whit little or no evidense to show guilt but they want a guilty verdict?How many times has evidence been fought to be kept out to prove their innocense?For over 8 years I have seen the real things being done because maybe a command doest like someone and when they are proven innocent they get adsep for some other reason.If KSF is a former TC for the defense you must have some type of award for your hard work.And for all those you got to sign a piece of paper was that just so some type of charge would be pinned on the defendant?

  37. hap ames says:

    Annoynmous How is it you know so much about Martin? Sounds like you have taken a lot of time to check her out?Maybe you should check better about her qualifacations and what the DCA in calif states about investigators?

  38. ksf says:


    I got an MSM as a Defense Counsel and an MSM and ARCOMM for my time as a Trial Counsel.

    I never bullied anyone into pleading guilty. Only about 60% of my cases were guilty pleas as a TDS Counsel, whereas there were defense counsel who never tried a contested case, at all.

  39. Anonymous says:

    “Special Victim’s Prosecutors in the Army”?

    Never heard of it, but sounds like it’d make a great post in itself. Makes me wonder who’ve been relegated to the status of “ordinary” victims.

  40. ksf says:

    Anonymous @11:39

    Check out this link

  41. Anonymous says:

    Even local LE does not have unfettered discretion to access the base. The Installation CO has a right to know who is on the base and what business they have there. In addition, if she gained access through some sort of suggestion she was a government investigator, that might well be a federal crime. At any rate, read the sign at the gate … Equal access to evidence doesn’t give a PI any right to operate on the base without notifying the Commander.

  42. ksf says:

    And another,

    An excerpt from the article:

    The report states that of 1086 servicemembers investigated for sexual assault, administrative or disciplinary action was taken against 280 of them.37 Of those 280, 56 were court-martialed, 102 received non-judicial punishment, 19 were discharged in-lieu of court-martial, 21 were discharged in lieu of disciplinary action,38 and 82 received administrative or other actions.39 The report also stated that action against 463 of the 1086 subjects was not taken due to unfounded allegations or insufficient evidence.40 The raw numbers may be deceiving and may suggest that the Army’s prosecution rate is too low, but “at worst, the Army prosecutes at a comparable rate to civilian jurisdictions.”41 However, that does not mean that the Army should not strive to do better.

    1086 reports with 280 actions taken. What happened with the other 800 cases? And how many acquittals are there in the 56 that were court martialed? Doesn’t 56 seem low?

    463 were unfounded? Does that mean they were false complaints? What happened to the 343 cases that are not accounted for (1086-280-463) How about having a Special victim of false allegation prosecutor to pay for their lawyer?

    Then they talk about how low the prosecution rate is, even though it is comparable to the civilian world. And the Army should strive to do better than the civilian world’s prosecution rate? Why? Seems to me that making a false allegation against whoever you have a problem with is commonplace in the military, why should we encourage more of it.

  43. hap ames says:

    Mr ksf,I have been involved in many contested cases and it is truley pathetic how the TC will attempt to change the evidence to attempt to show someone guilty or to attempt to have the evidense not allowed to prove it.

  44. hap ames says:

    Ok i see it now.There are no Investigators here but myself and the only people here have only been involved in guilty cases. My how ironic everyone here knows everything about the system.mmmmm

  45. ksf says:

    Seriously? So, do you expect for every civilian defense counsel to check in the Installation CO every time there is an arraignment or the CDC comes onto the installation to meet with his client? Please tell me that you are not an Army SJA. I’ve had a couple of victories this month, and I want to make sure that I can still get on post.

    What exactly did she say that indicates she was a Government investigator? And pray tell, under what US Code section is her conduct proscribed?

    If she said, “I’m Carolyn Martin. I am an investigator in the court martial of US v. Schmedlap,” then would that be a crime? Sounds like the truth to me.

    In fact, does anyone have her website address? I might need an investigator on one of my cases.

  46. ksf says:


    Is your first name Harvey? Are you this guy?

  47. Anonymous says:

    yes it is

  48. Anonymous says:

    yes it is. And like the bloggs here if any of theses were true,why has not the State pulled my licsen? People can sayy anything on here but the prrof tells it all. I still have 2 offices in Calif. Still licsened by the State. Now seeing as how u put this up show me the proof please.

  49. Hap Ames says:

    the last 2 should read Hap Ames not Anonymous

  50. Anonymous says:

    I assume Mr. Ames doesn’t agree with M.R.E. 602. Or maybe it’s M.R.E. 802 he’s so upset with.

  51. Anonymous says:

    We could tell it was you….believe me, the spelling spoke for itself.

  52. Hap Ames says:

    Well as you can see I do not hide with a phoney name. If yougentle men have nothing to hide then state who you are to show you have what it takes to prove your statements.

  53. ksf says:


    I didn’t make any statements about you, and the only statements somebody else on this blog made about you was that (1) you couldn’t spell and (2) you had a geeky psuedonym, which is actually your real name. However, you have accused everyone on this thread of being Government hacks who only do guilty pleas, which is quite far from the truth.

    I just asked if that was you. I don’t know you from Adam, but I am always looking for an investigator, and I sent you a link to HLA Investigations and the address to see if that was you. No need to get upset.

  54. Hap Ames says:

    IT is like I said. People that make statemens like those never state who they are. Wish I had all the monies they claim to have paid me.But I still keep getting calls from Defense Attorneys and private guess I am doing something right.Andhave only been in bussiness 28 years so guess Im a newbe or one hell of a crook.

  55. Hap Ames says:

    besides wish I knew who those people were that put those statements there.

  56. FormerTC says:

    Just to sum up: TCs are unethical, Defense should do anything for a not guilty finding, and NCIS and CID suck. Got it.

    I used to enjoy this blog, back when the exchanges dealt with constitutional issues and advocacy, not personal attacks.

  57. FormerTC says:

    And which cases are these? Doesn’t your state bar require you to report such transgressions? If you are talking about the prosecutor’s choice of advocacy that is separate from “attempt to change the evidence” or “attempt to have the evidense (sic) not allowed to prove it.”

    Yes, in most rape cases I did avail my case, specifically the victim, to MRE 412. If that makes me “truley (sic) pathetic” then so be it. And I do sleep well when I put the guilty in the brig.

    On a side note, I have had to go forward on the case where I didn’t believe it was appropriate for a GCM. However, I don’t have prosecutorial discretion. I’ve made the case to the CA not to go forward, but at the end of the day it was his call. You will be happy to know in both of those cases the outcome was just.


  58. FormerTC says:

    My apologies, I just realized you were an investigator, not defense attorney–was hard to tell with your rant against prosecutors. Disregard the previous post’s second sentence.

  59. ksf says:

    Hap is an investigator, not an attorney, so he doesn’t have a state bar.

    Was the time when you had to go forward on a court martial when you were a TC? Because, if this was a lack of evidence case, then you should have told the military judge that you did not believe that the evidence warranted the charges.

    I agree and would say that most prosecutors are not Mike Nifong.

  60. FormerTC says:

    Not a lack of evidence

  61. ksf says:


    Yeah, you were stuck, then. Been there, too.

    I had a court martial a couple of weeks ago where the first three Government witnesses gave a sworn statement 8 months ago that was favorable to my client. On the stand, their testimony changed to that which was unfavorable to my client. The stink of it was that the whole Military Justice shop (at least 5 attorneys to include the COJ) was there helping the TC’s change the witnesses testimony. Then, the CID agent testified denied saying something to the Trial Counsel by e-mail. I had the e-mail, showed it to the TC, and she asked for a 39(a) and objected to me impeaching him. It was ridiculous. I got to impeach him and the panel heard how he did send the e-mail to her.

    I’m not going to file a bar complaint because my bar does not require reporting misconduct, and I cannot say for sure that the TC’s counseled them to change their testimony. Plus, I want these people to continue doing this, so they completely lose the respect of the panel.

  62. Anonymous says:

    I’ve had a similar but reversed situation where someone complained about my actions as a defense attorney in a child molestation acquittal to CID and I believe OTJAG, but the local SJA supported me, CID knew me well enough to know I’d done nothing wrong, and I’m sure OTJAG laughed this person off.

    Still, a slightly different personality in one of those areas could have resulted in what you faced.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Wow, let’s break this down.

    “Yep, my guy did it.” DC do this, oh about 90 percent of the time, since the vast majority of the time our clients plead guilty. So good news, your first requirement is being met in spades.

    “Leavenworth and Miramar are full of innocent people.” No, they are not, and no one has argued that they are. See what you’ve built there out of the finest dead plant material known to man is what some like to call a Straw Man.

    “Win at all costs SJAs/TCs v. win at all costs DC.”

    Let’s see, one is based on the constitutional right to force the government to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and one is based on ignoring their duty to justice. Yep, seems equal to me.

    “DC do shady stuff.”
    Examples please? What “shady stuff” do you speak of?

  64. Anonymous says:

    not necessarily.

    Almost everyone who does criminal justice spends some amount of time as a prosecutor, but not everyone of those folks goes on to be a defense counsel. I’m actually one of those folks who was a defense counsel but never, yet, a prosecutor, although one assumes that will come sooner or later if I choose to continue doing criminal justice work (and the army agrees with said choice).

    A lot of folks, particularly SJAs, don’t always come back to military justice to be a defense counsel.

  65. Anonymous says:

    I’d delete the word unethical, replace it with the word overzealous (and possibly inexperienced) and add the word some in front of TCs and you’d have a pretty darn accurate first paragraph.

  66. Anonymous says:

    “If you ain’t first, you’re last” Reese Bobby, TC.

  67. Anon says:

    Thank god somebody said it. Each side has faults, nobody is perfect and both have war stories about behavior from the other side that is hard to believe. Law enforcement has a hard job, get beat up by both sides and often somehow get a job done.

  68. hap ames says:

    Nothing personal Anon but you must live on the east coast.Try living in the Los Angelas area and state that when you wake up to Law Enforcement shooting a 11 year old girl last night.

  69. fwb says:

    Prayers for the kid and WTH?

  70. soonergrunt says:

    Give us another birther post! That’ll fix it!

  71. BrigGen says:

    The case of discussion is that a defense investigator has claimed that her Constitutional Rights have been violated by NCIS Agents, SJA, etc. I’ve known Ms. Martin over ten years. In our many conversations, she has spoken with admiration of trial counsel, SJAs and yes, some NCIS Agents. Ms. Martin’s track record speaks for itself – I’m guessing about an 85% success rate. Most notably, she recently conducted a post-trial investigation that resulted in an Article 120 conviction overturned at the NMCCA. It is clear that the negative comments found on this blog are baseless. I would expect that before litigating a case the case file would be read. I would suggest that Ms. Martin’s filed complaint and injunction motion be read before commenting on this blog. In my ‘personal opinion’ no American should be denied their Constitutional Rights. I’m not an attorney but it doesn’t take a law degree to see what’s going on here.

  72. Frank Marsh says:

    I know Carol Martin. I worked with Carol Martin. I served with Carol Martin. She was and is the hardest working and most dedicated Marine I have ever known. Her integrity is unimpeachable. She is a strong and confident woman who intimidates weak incompetent men who have gotten by or succeeded by bullying others. Whether in the “war room” or the “court room” I can think of no better person I would want to fight for me more than her.

  73. USMC5821 says:

    I don’t have any first hand information about Carol Martin or her alleged misconduct so I will wait until all facts come to light before drawing any conclusions. My humble opinion is this: If she in fact identified herself to military officials as a DIA investigator for the purposes of fulfilling her private investigator mission, then at the very least, she’s got ethical issues. If a CID agent used his/her credentials for the purposes of obtaining criminal justice information for any purpose not related to being a criminal investigator, he/she would be fired. As for questions about the high number of “unfounded” sexual assault cases in the army, I can say from my own personal experience serving as an NCIS Agent that many of the sexual assault/rape reports received are difficult to substantiate or unsubstantiate. It’s not hard to prove two people had sex, but often times it is hard to prove that one raped or sexually assaulted the other.