Then Major Will M. Helixon in a General Court-Martial at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan in 2008.

Military Case Results – Since February 2016

Courts-Martial

United States v. Specialist (Fort Bliss, Texas) – 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) – 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) – An Airforce 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) – 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) – 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) – 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) – 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) – 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) – 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) – 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

Reprimands (GOMORs)

Separations

Civilian Case Results – Since February 2016

 

Civilian Case Results – Before Joining the U.S. Army

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 248th 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 176th 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 208th 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 185th 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 184th 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 185th 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 351st 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 351st 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.