Courts-Martial

United States v. First Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany, April 2023) – An Army 1SG was charged with kidnapping, assault, provoking speeches, and communicating a threat after confronting a parent that allegedly mistreated his children during a child youth sporting event.  After a fully litigation merits portion of the trial, surprisingly the military judge convicted the 1SG of all charges.  The Defense put on a comprehensive sentencing case, including character witnesses, loss of retirement income data, character affidavits, QMP and RCP regulations, an extensive “good soldier” book, impact testimony from his spouse, and evidence of PTSD treatment from his behavioral health counselor.  The Court sentenced the 1SG to NO PUNISHMENT.

United States v. Sergeant (Kaiserslautern, Germany, March 2023) – An Army SGT was charged with larceny, BAH fraud, and false official statement relating to wrongfully receiving more BAH than which he was entitled.  After a fully litigated merits phase of the trial where the SGT testified, the military judge acquitted the SGT of all charges.

United States v. Specialist  (Vilseck, Germany, May 2022) – An Army SPC was charged with three (3) specifications of rape and one (1) specification of aggravated assault (strangulation).  After a fully litigated merits phase of the trial where the SPC testified, an enlisted panel acquitted the SPC of all charges.

United States v. Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany, May 2021) – An Army SGT was charged with four (4) specifications of sexual assault involving two (2) alleged victims, three (3) specifications of assault with intent to commit rape involving two (2) alleged victims, fraternization, maltreatment of subordinates, extortion, and indecent exposure.  The Defense was able to dismiss all of the charges related to one of the victims in pretrial motions.  After a fully litigated merits phase of the trial where the SGT testified, an enlisted panel acquitted the SGT of all charges.

United States v. Specialist (Vilseck, Germany, May 2022) – An Army SPC was charged with three (3) specifications of sexual assault and aggravated assault of his estranged wife.  Facing a lengthy prison sentence, sexual assault registration, and a Dishonorable Discharge, the enlisted panel found him not guilty of all charges.

United States v. Sergeant First Class (Vilseck, Germany, November 2020) – An Army SFC was tried at a Special BCD Court-Martial for violating a General Order not to travel during COVID-19 and Driving While Intoxicated.  The military judge found him guilty of DWI.  During sentencing, the Defense argued that the SFC had substantial qualities to offer the Army and requested the SFC not be reduced and retained in the Army.  Finding this was the SFC second DWI, the military judge sentenced the SFC to 30-days in jail with NO reduction or discharge.

United States v. Private First Class (Kaiserslautern, Germany, October 2020) – An Army PFC was charged with multiple specifications of Article 120 sexual assault for incidents occurring after a military police ball.  After conducting the Article 32 Investigation and preparing the case for trial, the Government accepted the Defense Chapter 10, request for discharge in lieu of court-martial, based in part on the case built by the defense in anticipation of trial.  As a result of the Chapter 10, the PFC avoided any jail time and did not have to register as a sex offender.

United States v. Specialist (Vilseck, Germany, July 2020) – An Army SSG was charged, among other things, with stealing over $6,000 from one of his Soldiers.  The defense argued at the GCM that the SSG intended to return the money, but was prevented from doing so by his ex-wife draining his accounts, and leaving him with no money.  The sentencing case showed that the SSG was an outstanding Soldier and was well-liked by the unit.  Asking that he be permitted to continue with his Army career after the CM, the military judge sentenced the SSG to 90-days in jail and NO reduction or discharge.

United States v. Chief Warrant Officer 2 (Kaiserslautern, Germany, July 2020) –  An Army CW2 was charged with false official statement and larceny of government property (BAH fraud in the amount of over $60,000) at a General Court-Martial.  After fully litigating the case pre-trial and during the merits portion of the trial, an officer panel found the CW2 not guilty of all charges.

United States v. Private First Class (Vilseck, Germany, August 2020) –  An Army PFC was charged with violating a lawful order and the wrongful use of a controlled substance at a military judge alone special court-martial.  After fully preparing for trial, a Chapter 10 discharge with a General Characterization of Discharge was approved, and the PFC was saved from federal convictions and discharged from the Army under honorable conditions.

United States v. Master Sergeant (Stuttgart, Germany, February 2020) –  A Marine MSgt was charged with a single specification of the wrongful use of controlled substances (opiates) in a judge alone special court-martial.  The Defense argued that the MSgt did not knowingly take any opiates, and her German Special Forces boyfriend gave her medication from his aid bag for a headache, not knowing it was prohibited by the U.S. military.  The Defense also offered impressive character evidence of the MSgt, including a letter from a U.S. Marine 4-Star General.  The military judge acquitted the MSgt after a day long trial.

United States v. Specialist (Vilseck, Germany, December 2019) – An Army SPC was facing two (2) specifications of sexual assault in a GCM.  After litigating the case pre-trial, and demonstrating the weakness’s in the Government’s case, including the anticipated victim’s testimony, the Convening Authority withdrew and dismissed the case.  The SPC was spared risking jail time, convictions and sex offender registration.

United States v. Specialist (Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, August 2019) – An female Army SPC prison guard at the USDB was charged with obstruction of justice, seven (7) specifications of violating a lawful regulation by bringing cellphones to inmates, having contact with inmate’s family members, and having a relationship with an inmate, and destroying evidence.  Her case was referred to a GCM where it was determined the best COA was a OTP Guilty.  She plead guilty to all charges and specifications for a 24-month cap on confinement.  After the lengthy sentencing case, the military judge sentenced her to 90-days confinement and a BCD.

United States v. Private (Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, May 2018) – An Army Private was charged with sexual assault and AWOL terminated by apprehension.  After a fully litigated preliminary hearing, the government accepted the Soldier’s request to be discharged in lieu of court-martial, thereby avoiding sex-offender registration.

United States v. Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany, May 2018) – An Army Sergeant was charged with willful destruction of government property for sabotaging the straps used to secure three HMMWVs during a heavy drop exercise where all three HMMWV “burned in” to the ground.  The Sergeant was convicted, but in a moving sentencing case, was spared any jail time, and merely discharged from the Army with a Bad-Conduct discharge.  

United States v. Staff Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany, April 2018) – An Army Staff Sergeant faced multiple specifications of abusive sexual conduct, which if convicted would force him to register as a sex offender.  After a multiple day trial, the Staff Sergeant was acquitted of all sexual offenses, and found guilty of merely simple assault.  He was sentenced to a reduction to Specialist and allowed to remain in the Army.

United States v. Staff Sergeant (Vicenza, Italy, April 2018) – An Army Staff Sergeant was facing multiple specifications of rape, sexual assault, and simple assault for allegedly attacking his then spouse.  After a multiple day trial, the Staff Sergeant convicted of a single specification of simple assault.  Instead of life in prison, the Staff Sergeant was reduced to Sergeant and allowed to stay in the Army.  He was also sentenced to 30 days confinement, however those days were negated by sentence credit the Staff Sergeant received for pretrial punishment. 

United States v. Specialist (Fort Bliss, Texas, November 2016) – An Army Specialists was extended past his ETS (release date) from the service for investigation and ultimate court-martial for multiple charges of rape and sexual assault.  Facing decades in prison and sex offender registration, he hired Will M. Helixon to try the case at Fort Bliss, Texas.  After a two-day trial, the Specialist was fully acquitted of all charges and left the Army with an Honorable Discharge.

United States v. Private (Fort Carson, Colorado, April 2017) – An Army Private was charged with rape, assault, obstruction of justice, absence without leave, and violating four protective orders.  Facing life in prison and sex-offender registration, Will M. Helixon tried the case to an enlisted panel at Fort Carson, Colorado.  After the three-day trial, the recently married Private was acquitted of the most severe offenses.  During sentencing, Will M. Helixon was able to show that the Private was punished pretrial, and when the sentence was announced, walked out of court a free man and avoided sex-offender registration.

United States v. Senior Airman (Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, June 2017) – An Air Force Senior Airman was charged with three specifications of sexual assault of a child under the age of 16.  Facing a maximum punishment of 90 years confinement, the Senior Airmen agreed to plead guilty to one specification of sexual assault of a child for a sentence cap of 24-months.  Concerned about his case, he hired Will M. Helixon to represent him.  Unable to suppress his multiple admissions, Will M. Helixon tried the case to a military judge alone at Whiteman Air Force Base.  Although convicted, Mr. Helixon was able to establish a sentencing case limiting the Airman’s confinement to a mere 6-months.

United States v. Specialist (Fort Bragg, North Carolina, September 2016) – An Army Specialist was charged with desertion for seven (7) years terminated by apprehension.  Facing up to five (5) year in prison and a Dishonorable Discharge, he hired Will M. Helixon to try the case.  After investigating the circumstances surrounding leaving the Army and the ultimate return, Will Helixon was able to persuade the convening authority to administratively discharge the Specialist in lieu of a court-martial, thereby avoid any confinement and a felony conviction.

United States v. Master Sergeant (Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, May 2017) – An Army Master Sergeant was charged with multiple specifications of rape, inappropriate relationships, violation of lawful orders and maltreatment.  Facing over 300 years of confinement, he hired Will M. Helixon to try the case.  After, months of preparation and negotiation, Mr. Helixon was able to get the convening authority to approve an offer to plead guilty to a single abusive sexual contact specification (and other non-registerable offense).  The abusive sexual contact offense is not registerable in all states.  Mr. Helixon and the defense team was able to persuade the military judge to be lenient, and the Master Sergeant was sentenced to only 90-days in jail.

United States v. Corporal (Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, June 2017) – A Marine Corporal faced multiple felony-level charges for the unauthorized disclosure of photographs depicting naked female Marines.  He hired Will M. Helixon to try the case.  Mr. Helixon was successful in convincing the government counsel and convening authority to accept a summary court-martial and waiver of a board proceeding for separation.  Instead of a lengthy prison sentence and possible sex-offender registration, the Corporal was released in less than 14-days without a conviction or punitive discharge.

United States v. Sergeant (Fort Bragg, North Carolina, October 2017) – An Army Sergeant faced life in prison for five (5) years of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.  Will M. Helixon was engaged to research, develop, and argue that the acts of government officials were unlawful command influence.  The Sergeant pled guilty and after an outstanding defense sentencing case presented by the defense team was sentenced to no confinement.  Many commentators believe the lenient sentence was, in part, due to the concerns of unlawful command influence.

United States v. Sergeant First Class (Vilseck, Germany, November 2016) – An Army Sergeant First Class was investigated by CID for allegedly sexually assaulting his wife.  Facing decades in prison and sex-offender registration, the Sergeant First Class hired Will M. Helixon to represent him before charges were filed.  By actively investigating the case, and arguing on behalf of the Sergeant First Class, the government did not prosecute.  Instead, the government issued the Sergeant First Class a General Officer Letter of Reprimand (GOMOR).  Mr. Helixon and the used the information gathered during his investigation to persuade the convening authority to “tear up” the reprimand.  The Sergeant First Class was promoted to E-8 and is now serving as a company first sergeant.

United States v. Senior Airman (Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, December 2017) – An Air Force Senior Airman was charged with three (3) specifications of domestic violence by assaulting his wife, a specification of violating a protective order and a specification of adultery.  He was facing a year in jail (BCD), loss of his right to own firearms under the Lautenberg Amendment and a bad-conduct discharge.  After agreeing to plead guilty in exchange for a 90-day cap on confinement, he hired Will M. Helixon to try the case.  Mr. Helixon advised the Senior Airman to withdraw from the plea agreement and go to trial.  As the defense team prepared for trial, several legal issues arose that put pressure on the government.  Ultimately, Mr. Helixon and the defense team was able to persuade the convening authority to administratively separate the Senior Airman, thereby sparing any confinement or conviction, and preserving his right to own firearms.

United States v. Senior Airman (Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, May 2017) – An Air Force Senior Airman was under investigation by OSI for sexual assault.  He had been held beyond the expiration of his enlistment term pending the court-martial and was facing a lengthy prison term and sex-offender registration.  The Senior Airman hired Will M. Helixon to defend him during the investigation and try the court-martial.  After several months of questioning and legal demands by Mr. Helixon to both the government prosecutors and OSI, the command agreed and permitted the Senior Airman to leave the service with an Honorable Discharge.

Investigations

U.S Army Lieutenant Colonel (Paris, France) – Case Synopsis:  LTC (O-5) wrongfully accused by law enforcement of assaulting his spouse, facing possible court-martial charges for domestic assault, drunk and disorderly and conduct unbecoming an Officer.  A “No-Contact” was issued against the LTC, physically separating him from his Spouse and Family during the investigation and potentially through Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays.  Strategy:  John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon worked closely with the Client and his Spouse to determine the facts of the incident.  First, John worked tirelessly to get the “No Contact” order rescinded so the family could reunite and spend the holidays together.  Then, John worked closely with the CoC, Law Enforcement (CID) and Family Advocacy (marriage counseling) to allow the LTC to be reunited with his Spouse and Family for Thanksgiving and Christmas while the CID investigation was ongoing.  John assisted the LTC and his Spouse in presenting their factual written statements to CID.  Result:  LTC received a local letter of reprimand which will not be filed in his permanent Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).  The Client faced no other adverse action and was able to PCS on schedule with his family.

U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  LTC (O5) accused of and investigated by CID for allegedly assaulting 2 minor children, one of which was his own child.  The Client was facing potential Court-Martial charges and hired John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon.  Strategy:  John conducted his own investigation and obtained statements from the same witnesses CID interviewed and witnesses CID did not interview.  John analyzed the facts as presented by CID and presented an alternative version of facts.  Result:  The Client rightfully avoided Court-Martial charges and received only a local letter of reprimand from the Brigade Commander which is not permanently filed in the Client’s OMPF.  The Client did not receive any other adverse action and was even able to renew his security clearance with John’s assistance.

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  SSG (E6) accused of and investigated by the Military Police Investigators (MPI) for Assault by Battery of his German local national girlfriend.  The client hired John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to represent him during the investigation.  Strategy:  John worked very closely with the Client, the Client’s girlfriend and MPI.  John advised the Client to provide a sworn statement to MPI and obtained an exculpatory statement from the Client’s girlfriend.  Result:  The Client was never charged with Assault, faced no other adverse action and was permitted to PCS on schedule to his next assignment.

U.S. Army Master Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  MSG (E8) with approved retirement orders and on terminal leave received a DUI from local German law enforcement.  The Client was facing adverse action from Command.  Additionally, the Client’s spouse, a WO2, was facing adverse action for allegedly “loaning” the family vehicle to the Client in violation of Army in Europe Regulation AR 190-1.  John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon was hired to represent the MSG during the investigation.  Strategy:  John conducted extensive legal research to determine and present to the Command that they had no legal jurisdiction or authority to bring adverse action against the Client unless they underwent the excessively burdensome process of attempting to rescind and cancel retirement orders.  Additionally, John conducted legal research of AR 190-1 and determined it was legally permissible for the Client to use the vehicle in question since it was jointly owned by both the Client and the dual-military spouse.  John presented documentation to the Military Police which proved the vehicle was jointly owned.  Result:  Neither the Client nor the dual-military Spouse (WO2) faced any adverse action.  The Client was permitted to proceed with retirement and the dual-military spouse was able to PCS to their next assignment on schedule.

U.S. Army First Sergeant (Poland) – Case Synopsis: Two Clients, a 1SG (E8) and SFC (E7) were both wrongfully accused and investigated first through a 15-6 and then by CID of Abusive Sexual Contact.   Both Clients retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon after the CID investigation was initiated.  Strategy: John worked very closely with both Clients to understand all the facts and the Command climate in which the allegations arose.  John advised both Clients to give a truthful, in-person statements and evidence to CID while John was present at the CID interviews via MS Teams.  Result:  Both Clients were cleared of any and all wrongdoing by the Command Team and CID.  Both Clients faced no adverse action.

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class (Vicenza, Italy) – Case Synopsis: SFC (E7) was wrongfully accused and investigated for Negligence, Loss of Accountability of Sensitive Items and False Reporting of Sensitive Items.  The Client retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to assist during the investigation.  Strategy: John worked closely with the Client, reviewed all case materials and evidence and assisted the Client in writing a rebuttal to the allegations and a sworn statement.  John also wrote an extensive letter to the Commander who initiated the investigation wherein he outlined the facts in a logical, coherent and chronological order to show that the Client was not responsible for the misconduct she was accused of.  Result:  The Client was cleared of all allegations and faced no adverse action.

U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis: SSG (E6) was wrongfully accused of and investigated by Military Police Investigators (MPI) for allegedly being drunk and disorderly, assault and sexual harassment by a junior Soldier.  The Client was facing potential court-martial charges.  The Client hired John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to represent him during the course of the investigation.  Strategy: John worked closely with the Client and conducted his own investigation to determine the factual inconsistencies and impossibilities of the allegations as portrayed by the Alleged Victim.  John also uncovered and presented evidence of the Alleged Victim’s lack of credibility and motivation to fabricate the false allegations.  John was present with the Client throughout his interview and sworn statement to MPI.  Result:  The Client avoided court-martial charges and was guilty only of Fraternization at a Field Grade Article 15 and reduced in rank to E5.

Dependent Civilian (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  Army Spouse and mother to a teenager attending Department of Defense Educational Activity (DoDEA) High School who was expelled from school for the remainder of 2022/2023 academic year for misconduct retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to appeal the expulsion.  Strategy: John worked closely with the Client and conducted extensive legal research of DoDEA regulations.  John assisted the Client in generating and submitting an appeal packet and attorney letter to the appellate authority, requesting the expulsion be completely rescinded or reduced in duration.  Result:  The expulsion was significantly reduced and the Student was able to return to school.

Reprimands (GOMORs)

U.S. Army Captain (Grafenwoehr, Germany) – Case Synopsis: CPT (O3) was accused of investigated for wrongful use of government cell phone.  The IO of the 15-6 investigation found the Client deliberately and knowingly misused the Government cell phone.  The Client was issued a GOMOR and retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to assist in rebutting the GOMOR.  Strategy: John worked closely with the Client and provided documentation in the rebuttal packet wherein one could reasonably understand that her misuse of the government cell phone was not intentional, but instead a misunderstanding of the written user agreement.  Result: The GOMOR was filed in the Client’s local file and not permanently in the Client’s OMPF.  This local filing resulted in avoiding the initiation of a Board of Inquiry with potential early separation from service for misconduct.  There was no other adverse action against the Client and no other impact upon career progression.  The Client was able to PCS on schedule.

U.S. Army Master Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  MSG (E8) received a GOMOR for past misconduct and a Qualitative Management Program (QMP) was initiated against him by Human Resources Command (HRC).  The Client was facing a potential early separation with nearly 18 years of service, jeopardizing his retirement.  Strategy:  John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon analyzed the 15-6 investigation that gave rise to the original GOMOR and first attempted to have the unfavorable information removed from the Client’s permanent Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) by appealing to the Department of the  Army Suitability Evaluation board (DASEB) in accordance with Army Regulation 600-37.  At the same time, John generated and submitted a complete packet of rebuttal materials to the QMP.  Result:  The Client overcame the QMP proceedings and was able to finish his military career and retain his retirement.

U.S. Army Sergeant First Class (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  SFC (E7) was accused by a junior male Soldier of sexual harassment.  The Investigating Officer (IO) of the ensuing 15-6 investigation found by preponderance of evidence that the Client committed sexual harassment.  The Client was issued a GOMOR and retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to assist in rebutting the allegations and the GOMOR.   Strategy:  John carefully reviewed the GOMOR and the alleged factual account of sexual harassment by the complaining alleged Victim.  John interviewed several witnesses and obtained statements from several witnesses that the IO did not take statements from.  Additionally, John uncovered additionally exculpatory evidence not considered by the IO which determined it was physically impossible the Client could have been in the location at the date and time the alleged Victim claimed he was sexually harassed by the Client.  Result:  The findings of the AR 15-6 investigation were disapproved by the General Officer who issued the Client the GOMOR and the GOMOR was rescinded.  The Client faced no additional adverse action.

U.S. Army Captain (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  CPT (O3) was the Subject of a 15-6 investigation for fraternization with a subordinate SSG (E6).  The IO of the investigation found the Client committed fraternization to which the Client was issued a GOMOR.  The Client retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to assist with rebutting the GOMOR.  Strategy:  John worked closely with the Client and spent many hours meticulously digging through the 15-6 investigation in which many errors and incorrect findings were discovered.  John brought these factual inconsistencies to the attention of the General Officer who issued the GOMOR by submitting a complete rebuttal packet to include additional, relevant documentation that was incorrectly not considered by the IO.  Result:  The GOMOR was filed in the Client’s local file and not permanently in the Client’s OMPF.  This local filing resulted in avoiding the initiation of a Board of Inquiry with potential early separation from service for misconduct.  There was no other adverse action against the Client and no other impact upon career progression.  The Client was able to PCS on schedule.

Separations

Respondent Sergeant (Vilseck, Germany) – Case Synopsis:  After a CID and 15-6 investigation wrongfully concluded that a SSG (who is married with children) sexually harassed two junior Soldiers, the Client was then wrongfully found guilty of Sexual Harassment at a Field Grade Article 15, reduced in rank to SGT.  An administrative separation from service for misconduct was initiated with a Separation Board to follow with the potential to be separated from service for misconduct with an Other Than Honorable (OTH) characterization of service.  The Client retained John Caulwell of the Law Office of Will M. Helixon to represent him at his Separation Board.  Strategy:  John meticulously and thoroughly researched the entire case before the Board proceeded.  At the Separation Board, John carefully questioned several witnesses and was able to draw conflicting versions of facts among the alleged Victims.  The Client testified under the direct examination of John and was finally able to present his truthful version of all the facts.  Result:  The members of the Board found by a preponderance of evidence that the client DID NOT commit any of the eight alleged offenses he was wrongfully accused of.  Moreover, the members of the Board unanimously voted to retain the Client in service who was then able to ETS from service with an Honorable Discharge.

Respondent Captain (Joint Base San Antonio) – An Army Captain was facing a separation board after receiving a GOMOR for an inappropriate relationship with a married officer in her unit.  The Army board determined that she did engage in conduct that created the appearance that she was engaging in an inappropriate relationship, but determined the misconduct did not warrant separation, and was retained.

Respondent Colonel (Phoenix, AZ) – An Army AGR Colonel was facing a Board of Inquiry for the allegation of toxic leadership.  The Board of Inquiry was convened, and the Colonel faced losing AGR status and delaying retirement for over 10 years.  Will M. Helixon, through legal maneuvering, was able to delay the board until the Colonel exceeded 20-years of active duty, and he was able to retire immediately.  

Respondent Colonel (Fort Bragg, NC) – An Army Reserve Colonel was facing a Board of Inquiry for the allegation of toxic leadership.  The 3-time brigade commander was able to retire rather than go through the board procedure.

Respondent Major (Fort Meade, VA) – An Army AGR Major was facing a Board of Inquiry for the allegation of rape of a subordinate while TDY.  The Board of Inquiry determined, after the witness testified, that the Major did not engage in the complained of misconduct and he was retained.

Respondent Lieutenant Colonel (promotable) (Fort Meade, VA) – An Army doctor was facing separation for failing to maintain the Army height/weight standard.  The board unanimously decided to retain the doctor and he was re-instated to promotion list.

Respondent Sergeant First Class (Joint Base Lewis McChord) – An Army Sergeant First Class faced separation for allegedly assaulting his wife after a playoff NFL football game.  The board found that the Soldier did not engage in the misconduct, and he was retained.

Violent Crimes

State of Texas v. Allen Wayne Janecka (Capital Murder) – In July 1979, the bodies of John and Diana Wanstrath and their 14-month son Kevin were discovered in their home in Houston, Texas.  Each had been shot in the head.  Originally ruled a murder-suicide, an extensive investigation ensued, focusing on Diana’s brother, Markham Duff-Smith, who stood to gain a substantial inheritance upon the family’s death.  During his investigation, evidence showed that Duff-Smith hired Walt Waldhauser to murder the family and that Waldhauser, in turn, hired Janecka to commit the murders.  Janecka later confessed to the murders when questioned by police, and also in television interviews.  Janecka was tried, convicted and sentenced to death in April 1981.  The case was reversed for an error in the indictment, and Janecka was re-tried in September 1993.  Will Helixon was initially hired as a full-time briefing clerk for the re-trial, and upon graduating from law school, became the briefing attorney for the 3-person capital defense team.  After an eight week trial in the 248^th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Janecka was convicted at the retrial, and sentenced to death for a second time on November 4, 1993.  The next day, Will was notified he passed the bar examination and was sworn-in by the judge presiding over the Markum Duff-Smith trial.  Will was also part of the appellate defense team preparing the written brief to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. After all appeals were exhausted, Allen Wayne Janecka was executed on July 24, 2003.  This case, and the work associated with defending the life of Allen Wayne Janecka, was the catalyst propelling Will’s passion for criminal law and military justice.  This case was the subject of the true crime novel “The Cop Who Wouldn’t Quit.”  Case #642963.

State of Texas v. J.D.B. (Conspiracy to Commit Capital Murder) – An 18-year-old defendant was arrested and accused of conspiring to kill an acquaintance, C.F., in Fort Worth, Texas.  The defendant was allegedly the last person to see him alive and witnesses accused him of killing C.F. with his brother, a juvenile.  Will Helixon was able to secure a bond in the case, and ultimately have the matter dismissed by the prosecutors for lack of evidence.  Case #05****6.

State of Texas v. D.H. (Attempted Rape) – The defendant was charged with following an exotic dancer home from a club, climbing her apartment security fence, attacking her at her car and attempting to rape her.  The victim was able to resist the attack, and the defendant fled.  At trial, the victim was able to identify her attacker and documentary evidence put him at the club the night of the attack.  In a jury trial in the 176^th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the defendant was found guilty of attempted rape.  On sentencing, the prosecutors introduced a prior conviction for rape where the defendant was sentenced to 5 years in prison.  Will Helixon was able to effectively persuade the jury to not sentence the defendant to the maximum punishment and instead he was sentenced to only 14 years confinement for his second sexual assault-related conviction. Case #94-2***8.

State of Texas v. S.D.H. (Aggravated Assault) – The defendant was charged with aggravated assault in Houston, Texas.  In the 208^th District Court of Harris County, Texas, Will Helixon was able to convince the prosecutor to case dismiss the case before trial based on the expected testimony of the witnesses.  Case #94-1***8.

State of Texas v. S.M.W. (Assault) – The defendant was charged with assault in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon was able to persuade the prosecutor of the County Criminal Court of Law 12 of Harris County, Texas, to dismiss the case based on the inability of the State to secure witnesses and prevail at trial.  Case #96-1***3.

Drug Offenses

State of Texas v. D.P. (Possession of Cocaine) – The defendant was arrested after discovering cocaine in his car after an arrest in Houston, Texas.  The defendant was lawfully parked in a city park under a tree when approached by officers.  Suspicious of wrongdoing, the officers questioned the defendant and searched his car, discovering cocaine.  In the 185^th District Court, Harris County, Texas, as co-counsel with his law partner, Will Helixon filed a dispositive motion to suppress the cocaine based upon lack of probable cause to search the vehicle.  The motion was granted and the case was dismissed.

State of Texas v. G.C.B. (Possession of Marijuana) – The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in Houston, Texas.  In the County Criminal Court at Law 12 of Harris County, Texas, Will Helixon persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss the charge based on insufficient evidence.  Case #94-4***3.

State of Texas v. S.M.W. (Possession of a Controlled Substance) – The defendant was charged with possession of crack cocaine in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon tried the case to a jury in the 184^th District Court of Harris County, Texas, resulting in a hung jury.  The prosecutor dismissed the case with prejudice after the mistrial.  Case #6****3.

State of Texas v. M.R. (Possession of Marijuana) – The defendant was charged with the possession of marijuana in Katy, Texas.  Will Helixon successfully litigated a dispositive motion to suppress based on an unlawful search of a home and excluded the marijuana resulting in a dismissal.  Case #95-26***3

State of Texas v. J.S. (Possession of Marijuana) – The defendant was charged with the possession of marijuana in Katy, Texas.  Will Helixon successfully litigated a dispositive motion to suppress based on an unlawful search of a home and excluded the marijuana resulting in a dismissal.  Case #95-2***5

Driving While Intoxicated Offenses

State of Texas v. M.J.G. (Driving While Intoxicated) – The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in Houston, Texas.  In the County Criminal Court at Law 13 of Harris County, Texas, Will Helixon effectively persuaded the prosecutor to dismiss the charge after viewing all the evidence, including the intake video of the defendant.  Case #95-0***0.

State of Texas v. G.C. (Driving While Intoxicated) – The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon secured a jury acquittal in County Criminal Court at Law 13 of Harris County, Texas.  Case #94-4***0.

State of Texas v. F.S.K. (Driving While Intoxicated) – The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon tried the case to a jury in the County Criminal Court of Law 10 of Harris County, Texas, resulting in an acquittal.  Case #95-1***6.

State of Texas v. S.R. (Driving While Intoxicated) – The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon tried the case to a jury in the County Criminal Court of Law 13 of Harris County, Texas, resulting in an acquittal.  Case #15-2***8.

State of Texas v. K.L. (Driving While Intoxicated) – The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon tried the case to a jury in the County Criminal Court of Law 1 of Harris County, Texas, resulting in an acquittal.  Case #95-2***1.

State of Texas v. M.H. (Driving While Intoxicated) – The defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon tried the case to a jury in the County Criminal Court of Law 2 of Harris County, Texas, resulting in an acquittal.  Case #96-0***9.

State of Texas v. T.M.G. (Failure to Stop and Give Information) – The defendant was charged with failing to stop and give information after an automobile accident in Houston, Texas.  In County Criminal Court at Law 6 of Harris County, Texas, Will Helixon was successful in persuading the prosecutor to dismiss the charge based on anticipated testimony at trial.  Case #94-1***6.

Weapons Offenses

State of Texas v. S.A.H. (Possession of a Concealed Weapon) – The defendant was charged with possession of a concealed weapon in Houston, Texas.  In the 185^th District Court, Harris County, Texas, Will Helixon successfully negotiated a dismissal based on the anticipated testimony of defense witnesses.  Case #94-2***9.

State of Texas v. K.C. (Possession of a Concealed Weapon) – The defendant was charged with possession of a concealed weapon in Galveston, Texas.  In the County Criminal Court of Law 2 of Galveston County, Texas, Will Helixon filed a dispositive motion to dismiss that was granted resulting in the dismissal of the case.  Case #1****0.

Other Offenses

State of Texas v. J.M. (Criminal Mischief) – The defendant was charged with criminal mischief in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon was able to persuade the prosecutor in the 351^st District Court of Harris County, Texas, to dismiss the case based on likely testimony of the complaining witness at trial (non-prosecution).  Case #94-0***5.

State of Texas v. J.T.M. (Criminal Mischief) – The defendant was charged with criminal mischief in Houston, Texas.  Will Helixon was able to persuade the prosecutor in the 351^st District Court of Harris County, Texas, to dismiss the case based on likely testimony of the complaining witness at trial (non-prosecution).  Case #94-0***4.