US v. Cadet
March 8, 2020
University of North Georgia
Cadet (CDT), along with 12 other CDTs, is accused of hazing and lying school to officials about an incident involving another CDT who suffered alcohol poisoning. CDT is issued a leave of absence from the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) which prevents him from being able to attend ROTC required classes, events, and receive pay. The University conducts an investigation spearheaded by two attorneys who submit a report stating that nearly all of the accused CDTs were guilty of either hazing, lying, or both. The University, based on the report, moves to severely discipline the CDTs involved. ROTC, based upon the report, also moves to disenroll all CDTs involved, which would strip them of their scholarship, pay back thousands of dollars to ROTC, and even require them to enlist into the Active Duty Army prior to their completion of school. CDT retains Mickey Williams to represent him during his ROTC disenrollment. Mr. Williams conducts his own investigation and discovers that many of the facts cited by the University’s report are contradictory and incorrect. Mr. Williams and his team interview over twenty (20) witnesses who either give a completely different version of events cited by the investigation or details, although highly relevant, left out of the report. Mr. Williams then prepares the CDT an exhaustive cross-examination of the two attorneys who prepared the investigation, direct examinations of fact witnesses, and an opening and closing argument for the CDT (unlike Administrative Separation Boards or Courts-Martial, the attorney is allowed to advise the CDT, but is not allowed to advocate, question witnesses, or make objections. These tasks fall on the CDT who likely has little to no experience in such matters, which is why hiring an experienced ROTC attorney to prepare the CDT is critical for disenrollment boards). During the hearing, the CDT cross-examines the attorneys, who are caught off guard. The CDT is able to point out the extreme bias, contradictions, missing evidence, and the misrepresentations within the investigation through his cross-examination of the attorneys. CDT also successfully direct examines his witnesses and presents a passionate closing argument to the board.
Case Result
CDT RETAINED, MISCONDUCT UNFOUNDED, NO LOSS OF SCHOLARSHIP, NO RECOUPMENT OF TUITION, NO FORCED ENLISTMENT
