Court-Martial Appeal Attorneys

Founded in 1973 by Gary Myers, the law firm of Daniel Conway & Associates is one of the most experienced military appellate law firms in the country. Together, military trial our team has authored the Handbook of Crimes and Defenses in the Military with Thomson Reuters. Our team consists of highly experienced lawyers who have decades of experience representing members of the military. Our military criminal defense lawyers have represented service members in court-martials, separation boards, discharge review boards, medical evaluation boards, federal courts, and the boards for correction of military records. ​

When facing a court-martial conviction, it is crucial to have a skilled and knowledgeable lawyer on your side to protect your rights and advocate for your best interests. At Daniel Conway & Associates, our team of court-martial appeals lawyers has extensive experience in handling appeals cases and can provide you with the strong legal representation you need.

Why choose us for your court-martial appeal:
​

• Expertise in military law: Our lawyers have a deep understanding of the military justice system and the complexities involved in court-martial appeals.
• Proven track record: We have a successful track record of helping clients appeal their court-martial convictions and achieve favorable outcomes.
• Personalized approach: We take the time to understand your unique situation and develop a tailored legal strategy to maximize your chances of success.
• Attention to detail: Our team meticulously reviews all aspects of your case, including trial records, evidence, and legal procedures, to identify any errors or constitutional violations that can be raised on appeal.
• Strong advocacy: We are dedicated to fighting for your rights and will vigorously argue your case in court, presenting compelling legal arguments to convince the appellate court to overturn your conviction.

---

Past Cases

We are one of the most experienced military appellate firms in the country. Below is a non-exhaustive sample of published cases the firm has handled. Many cases are resolved or settled prior to court-opinion publication. Brief summaries for the cases where the Court granted favorable relief are provided. 

Published Military Court Opinions

United States v. Allred
(On consideration of the entire record, the finding of guilty of The Specification of Additional Charge IV and Additional Charge IV is SET ASIDE and that Specification and Additional Charge is DISMISSED. )

United States v. Bickford

United States v. Brown
(The findings of guilty to Specification 2 of Charge II and to Charge II are set aside. Specification 2 of Charge II and Charge II are dismissed with prejudice.)

United States v. Boyle

​United States v. Butler

United States v. Calhoun 
(Findings as to Specification 13, of Charge 1 Set Aside and Dismissed.) 

United States v. Cabral

United States v. Coloncordero 
(The findings of guilty of Specifications 1 and 2 of The Charge and The Charge are AFFIRMED. The findings of guilty of Specifications 4, 5, and 6 of The Charge are conditionally SET ASIDE and conditionally DISMISSED.)

United States v. Cooper

United States v. Covitz 
(Findings and sentence set aside.)

United States v. Daniels

United States v. Ellis
(The findings and sentence are set aside. The record is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for remand to an appropriate CA with a rehearing authorized.)

United States v. Hale
(The findings and sentence were set aside). 

United States v. Hernandez
(The findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority are affirmed. The supplemental court-martial order will reflect sexual “contact” instead of sexual “act” in Specification 2 of Charge II.)

United States v. Hiser

United States  v. Jeffries

United States v. Jesko 
(Specification 1 of Charge I and Specification 8 of Charge III, to which appellant pled guilty, are SET ASIDE. )

​United States v. Leonard
(The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed. The findings and sentence are set aside and a rehearing is authorized.)

​United States v. Novak
(We set aside the guilty finding to Charge I and its sole specification and dismiss Charge 1 and its specification.)

​United States  v. Penn

U.S. v. Pitre
(The court affirms only so much of the findings of guilty of The Specification of Charge III,)

United States v. Pflug
(The finding of guilty as to Specification 2 of Charge I and the sentence are set aside).

United States v. Reshke

United States v. Roberts
(The Convening Authority's initial action was set aside). 

United States v. Rodriguez
(On consideration of the entire record, the finding of guilty as to Specification 4 of Charge II is SET ASIDE and DISMISSED. )

United States v. Rushatz

​United States v. Scott
(Accordingly, the record of trial and all related appellate documents are returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy for transmittal to the appropriate convening authority. )

United States v. Smith

United States v. St. Jean

United States v. Sutton
(The decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals was reversed. The finding of guilty to the charge and its specification and the sentence are set aside. The charge and specification are dismissed.)

United States v. Tavares

United States v. Vela

United States v. Vidal 
(The Convening Authority's initial action was set aside. Charges were eventually dismissed and an administrative resolution occurred). 

Published Federal Court Opinions

Andrews v. Webb

Barrett v. McHugh

Bond v. United States

Bublitz v. Brownlee
(FURTHER ORDERED that this action shall be TRANSFERRED to the Court of Federal Claims.)

Gilbert v. James
(ORDERED that this matter be STAYED, temporarily, to allow for reconsideration de novo by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, of the plaintiffs' petitions for correction of their military records, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552; and it is further
ORDERED that the parties shall file, by March 31, 2016, and every ninety days thereafter, a joint status report describing the progress of the consideration of the plaintiffs' petitions.)

Gilbert v. Wilson

Homer v. Roche
"For the reasons stated in the Court's accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is herebyORDERED that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED."

​Metz v. United States
(For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff's motion for judgment is GRANTED. The clerk shall enter judgment awarding MSgt. Metz relief as follows: (1) back pay in the amount of $30,300.74 for the period from September 9, 1994 through October 30, 1995;
(2) early retirement starting on October 31, 1995, back retirement pay in the grade of E–7 from October 31, 1995 to the present, and retirement pay for the remainder of MSgt. Metz's natural life; (3) expurgation of all references to MSgt. Metz's separation in lieu of court-martial from his record.)

Kosnik v. Peters

Lopez-Velazquez v. United States

​Ludlow v. Mabus
(Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgement granted).

​Nishitani v. United States

Poole v. Harvey
"The court concludes that Poole's motion for summary judgment must be granted insofar as it contends that the ABCMR's decision is arbitrary and capricious and denied insofar as it requests that this court order Poole's retroactive promotion."