Guy L. Womack & Associates, P.C. Case Results

Federal Criminal Cases

U.S. v RSI - Client was convicted of child pornography and related offenses in Federal court. After serving 8 and 1/2 years of his 10 year sentence, Client was released from custody and placed on 5 years Supervised Release. Less than a year into his Supervised Release period, Client committed a series of violations of the terms of his release, including residing with a new girlfriend and her 6 minor children, Driving While Under the Influence of alcohol, non-participation in the Court-ordered Sex Offender treatment program and several other less-serious transgressions. The Supervising Probation Officer moved the Court to order Client's immediate arrest and to thereafter revoke the Supervised Release and to sentence Client to a prison sentence for the violations.

It was at this point that the Client retained our firm to help.

Within one week of assuming full responsibility on the case, we negotiated with the Court, Government, Probation Officer and Bureau of Prisons Officials not to revoke the Supervised Release, but instead to temporarily place him in a Residential Re-Entry Center, commonly referred to as a "halfway house."

Client was quickly released from custody of the U.S. Marshal and then allowed to turn himself into the Residential Re-Entry Center the next week for a 90-day stay before being restored to Supervised Release.

Matter of JH - American citizen accused of rape based on fraudulent charges. Prosecutors filed a dismissal. Read more!

Matter of LM - Worker of the U.S. Department of Defense in Afghanistan charged with rape. Agencies realized their charges were insufficient to obtain the client's extradition from the U.S. to Ireland. Read more!

U.S. v. BCH --A 59 year-old man, an American Indian and former U.S. Marine, was Indicted and charged in Federal Court on four counts of sexually assaulting his 15 year-old step-daughter over a 2-year period. Because the allegations supposedly occurred on Indian lands in North Dakota, the case was to be handled in the U.S. District Court. In preparing to meet the Government's case at trial, we concluded the teen girl was lying about her step-father because he and her mother were separated and pending a divorce. Apparently she believed that making such serious claims against him would somehow help her mother in the Family Court. The girl's false accusations specified dates on which the assaults occurred, which coincided with days she left school early due to illness. She was emphatic that the assaults occurred only on those dates and at their home. She distinctly recalled that her step-father was in his work truck on every occasion. But as with so many such cases we have tried, the truth has a way of coming out. In response to a Discovery Request we made, the Government obtained tracking data from the GPS equipment on our Client's work truck. Upon examination of the GPS data, it was determined that the girl's statements couldn't have been true, as on the days and times she was home from school, he was not in the area near their home. The Tribal Police had possessed this information for almost two years and concealed it from the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Defense until the week before trial was to commence. Once presented with this exculpatory evidence, the Government immediately dismissed the Indictment.

U.S. v. DRS --Client's husband was arrested and charged for his involvement in a large marijuana conspiracy. Client's vehicle was seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Client and her husband retained our firm to help fight the criminal charges and to help fight to get client's vehicle back from the DEA. Geoff Womack immediately sent a notice letter to the DEA and the United States Attorney's Office. Upon receipt of this letter, the US Attorney's Office declined to forfeit the vehicle. Client's vehicle was immediately returned!

U.S. v. GM. Client was charged in a three count federal Indictment with having conspired to possess marijuana with the intent to distribute it. After a week-long trial, the jury deliberated a day and a half before convicting him. We persuaded the Judge not to take him into custody, but to allow him to return home for 2 weeks to prepare for his incarceration. When that period expired, the Client fled north to Iowa, where he lived under his real name for 14 years. To avoid detection, the Client simply told his employer that he didn't have his Social Security Card and the employer presumed this to mean he was an illegal alien from Mexico or Central America. There, Client raised his four children, had one son enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps and serve multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, and put others through college. This year, fourteen years later,

Client traveled to Mexico, had a memorable weekend south of the border, then returned to Laredo, Texas, and surrendered to U.S. authorities. When he first informed them of his identity and that he was a fugitive, Border Patrol agents laughed and told him to knock off the humor. Once he convinced them of his status, he was taken into custody and returned to the Corpus Christi Division for sentencing. Now faced with not only the original drug conviction, but the additional charge of having failed to appear at his sentencing, things appeared dire. After pleading guilty to the failure to appear charge, we proceeded to trial. However, as a result of his lengthy absence, we persuaded the Court that his prior State drug conviction had since become too old to count in his Criminal History Category. That is, his absence resulted in a significant drop in his Sentencing Guidelines recommended sentence!

Despite a Gov't recommendation that he be assessed an additional 4 offense levels as a Leader in the drug conspiracy, the Judge declined to add any aggravating levels. At the sentencing, we presented the live testimony of his Marine son, who impressed the Judge with his devotion to America, which the son credited to his father. The Judge commented on how well it seemed Client had done in raising his family, even though it occurred while he was a fugitive. Ultimately Client was sentenced to 63 months on the drug offense and the Judge ordered the sentence for failure to appear to run concurrently with the drug sentence. By having disappeared for fourteen years, Client's sentence was reduced from a likely 15 1/2 year sentence to just more than 5 years!

U.S. v. G.G. – A joint Federal and State Narcotics Task Force conducting an undercover "reverse sting" operation directed the target buyer of a quantity of cocaine to deliver over $1 million in U.S. currency to a location in McAllen, Texas. The officers followed the money as it traveled from Atlanta, Georgia to McAllen and arranged for Texas State Troopers to conduct a traffic stop of the last vehicle to receive the money once it arrived in the Rio Grande Valley. The unlucky driver was a young mother of four children who had never before been in trouble of any kind.

When the Trooper asked to search her vehicle's trunk, she consented, fearing it would look worse for her if she refused. Upon finding the $1 million-plus in luggage in the trunk, the Trooper asked her where she got the money. The driver said that she had never before seen the luggage and money, and that she had just stopped at a local Wal-Mart and suggested the money must have been put in there while she was in the store. The Trooper quipped that he was going to start shopping at that store in hopes someone would give him a large amount of money. After filing numerous motions and aggressively fighting against what all knew would ultimately end in a conviction, our client agreed to plead guilty and ask for mercy from the federal judge.

The sentencing proceedings lasted 3 hours, over the course of three separate days. Ultimately, our client was sentenced to time served and to pay a Special Assessment of $100. That is, this young mother spent 7 days in jail at the start of the case and was required to pay $100 at the end, but suffered no other punishments, at all. Importantly to the client, no person was charged or prosecuted as a result of her pleading guilty and she walked out of court unafraid that anyone would think she had given information against others. She and her family were safe from any repercussions and she remained free to live her life with her family.

She did not, however, recover the $1 million-plus in U.S. currency.

U.S. v. FSG: College graduate with degree in Horse Racing Industry from University of Arizona went to work for quarter horse buyers in Oklahoma, Texas and Mexico. As part of his duties, he attended horse auctions across the Southwest, studied the available yearlings, and advised the buyers on which horses to buy and how much to pay for them. He also arranged for training, veterinarian care, and maintenance of the horses as part of the racing program. When Federal authorities discovered that much of the money to run this multi-million dollar racing enterprise came from drug trafficking proceeds given to the buyers by a Mexican drug cartel, my client and the buyers, along with several trainers and jockeys, were indicted on conspiracy to launder drug proceeds.

After a four-week trial, in which numerous members of the drug cartel who were then working as informants for the Government testified, my client and the others were convicted. Under the federal sentencing guidelines, FSG had the highest range of punishment of any of the many defendants, due to his role in overseeing the horse racing operations and causing the money to be sent to pay for various aspects of the enterprise. At the sentencing, after presenting considerable information mitigating his role in the conspiracy and putting him in the best possible light, FSG was sentenced only to eight years. That is, the Judge gave a variance of sentence from the recommended Guidelines range of 23-31 years and lowered it to eight years.

FSG never cooperated with the Government agents and his case is now pending appeal.

United States v. A.B. & M.G. -- Clients flew their private plane from Houston, Texas to McAllen, Texas to check on a business they owned in McAllen. After completing their business in McAllen, the clients went to the private airport to fly home to Houston. The clients were asked by a friend to fly another person back with them. The U.S. Border Patrol stopped the private plane from leaving and questioned all three of the occupants. The U.S. Border Patrol accused the clients of transporting an illegal alien by air to avoid being detected by the U.S. Border Patrol Checkpoints. The families for our clients immediately contacted attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates. Within minutes of being contacted, Guy Womack was able to make contact with the U.S. Border Patrol Agents, fax a letter to the U.S. Border Patrol Station, and secure the release of the clients. The clients were released, not charged, and were allowed to fly their plane back home to Houston!

U.S. v. A.M.C.: 30-year old man with U.S. Birth Certificate was detained at the border by Border Patrol agents after giving them the wrong city of his birth. Upon checking, the agents learned that there was a man by same name and date of birth born at a hospital in Mexico. Assuming he was using false documents to gain entry into the U.S., AMC was arrested and charged. His first 2 lawyers advised him to plead guilty, which would mean a short prison sentence, followed by Removal and, due to the false documents, he may never be granted permission to reenter the U.S. When the family provided us with the Gov't case file to review, we saw that there was as much evidence of a U.S. birth as a Mexican one, so we advised the family to fight this. The family retained us the day before AMC's scheduled guilty plea, we flew to El Paso, took over the case, and AMC decided against the guilty plea. We set the case for a bench trial to be held two weeks later. During the interim, the Gov't dismissed all charges and AMC continues to live in his native U.S.

U.S. v. AB: Federal agents receive tip that a house in South Texas is being used to store several thousands pounds of marijuana and set up surveillance on the residence. As the client exits the house and is about to drive away in his truck, agents stop him, identify him and detain him while others approach the house. The lone resident of the house allow the agents to enter to search the home, in which they find several tons of marijuana. Client and the resident are arrested. We file a motion to suppress the evidence, including the identity of client, based upon the unreasonable stop and detention of him before the agents confirm that there is contraband in the house. All charges against the client were dropped. The resident pled guilty and received substantial confinement.

United States v. J.A. Tried in U.S. District Court in San Antonio for possession with intent to distribute 3 kilograms of cocaine found in his hotel room. Jury deliberated 3 hours, acquitted defendant.

United States v. E.N. Indicted on federal charges of possession with intent to distribute 3 kilograms of cocaine found strapped to legs and waist. Despite sentence guideline range of 87-108 months, sentenced only to time served – 4 days.

United States v. K.S. Commercial trucker indicted on federal charges of smuggling several tons of marijuana. Case dismissed by U.S. Attorney’s Office on the morning of trial, insufficient evidence. Tractor trailer returned to defendant.

United States v. L.H. Venezuelan smuggler, a licensed doctor in Mexico, found in Houston with 7 kg. of heroin in suitcase. All evidence suppressed as fruit of illegal search. Government appealed to 5th Circuit, who upheld the trial court’s suppression. Defendant allowed to return to Venezuela, all charges dropped.

Deepwater Horizon. In April of 2010, the Deepwater Horizon had a massive blowout, killing 11 rig workers and injuring numerous others. The disaster became international news. As a result, many of those on the rig were being questioned by the United States Department of Justice. Attorney's for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. were hired by many of these workers to be their legal counsel through these investigations. Although several of the BP employees have been charged with criminal charges, none of Guy Womack & Associates, P.C.'s client have had charges brought against them!

Military Criminal Cases

U. S. V. SSG SC General Court-Martial, Rapes, Aggravated Assault with Firearm Client - An Army veteran, faced multiple charges of raping two women, strangling one of his young sons, aggravated assault upon a woman by pointing a loaded firearm at her head, beating the same woman, driving while intoxicated and multiple uses of marijuana.

Client was deemed a danger to the community and was ordered confined pending trial. Because his unit was stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, which had no brig, Client was confined in a brig at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington.

After his charges were referred to trial by General Court-Martial, several months after his apprehension, Client retained us to represent him at trial. During our investigation of the facts of this case, we learned that one of the women who claimed to have been raped actually was a jilted girlfriend who had, in effect, become a stalker of Client. Contrary to the claims of the stalker, we were able to prove that during the five-month period during which she testified he had repeatedly raped her at his off-post home, he actually had a girlfriend living with him. This young lady testified that she was with him continuously through that period and that there were no other women living in the house. Further, the stalker had made numerous pre-trial statements that materially differed from her in-court testimony. The military jury had little trouble disregarding her accusations and he was acquitted of this.

Similarly, the woman who alleged Client had strangled his young son was a jilted lover whom he refused to marry when he learned she was pregnant with the child. Through cross-examination of the child we established that the child was not allowed to call his father "dad" when talking of him with his mother, but had to refer to him as "Mister" and his first name. The young child also testified that his mother continually told him what he must testify to during the months leading up to the trial. As with the stalker, the panel of military members acquitted Client of this charge.

As for the remaining charges, levied by his estranged wife, the Court disbelieved her accusation that Client had pointed a loaded firearm at her during a violent fight on New Year's morning after a night of drinking and arguing. Client was convicted of the non-consensual sexual assault of his estranged wife and of beating her during the early-morning fight. And he was convicted of the DWI offense, as he was apprehended by police driving away from the family home immediately after the fight and was noticeably intoxicated, and he was convicted of marijuana use consistent with a positive urinalysis.

Client made an unsworn statement at the sentencing proceedings, admitting his marijuana use but explaining that he had never used marijuana for recreational purposes, but had been using it for a year as it eased symptoms of his PTSD that was documented in his health records as a result of traumatic brain injuries suffered during his three deployments to Iraq. That is, he self-medicated himself with the marijuana when prescription narcotics proved ineffective and caused other adverse side effects.

The Government Counsel argued for 30 years confinement on the possible Life without Parole sentence. We argued that this was unreasonable, under the circumstances of this case. The military members deliberated about two hours and sentenced him to only 18 months confinement. With credit for the time he had served in pre-trial confinement, this meant he had by four months left to serve.

U.S. v. JRG: Client, a PO1, U.S. Navy, serving with Marines in Hawaii, was tried by General Court-Martial on alleged violations of Articles 120 and 128 of the UCMJ. Client’s ex-wife accused him of having raped her on several occasions and of having choked, stifled, struck and thrown her around on 10 different occasions during their short marriage. To try to prove their case, the Government offered the testimony of the lying ex-wife, her mother, and two of the ex-wife’s close friends. Additionally, the Gov’t presented the testimony of an expert witness to explain how women may be battered yet not report abuse, or having reported abuse, may recant their reports.

We aggressively cross-examined the ex-wife over a period of four hours over a two-day period, interrupted at one point when the dramatic witness feigned to break down into tears and caused an immediate recess for her to regain her composure. Sadly for her, we continued the line of questioning when trial continued and during this questioning she forgot to act emotional, belying her earlier theatrics.

We pointed out that the ex-wife had told investigators very different stories, and that she had told Family Advocacy Program Counselor's remarkably different stories than what she told the investigators. We also got the ex-wife to admit that she had video recorded Skype communications and Facebook messaging between her and our client in her efforts to collect some evidence of the allegations. She confessed that she was deceitful in her comments to Client so as to provoke him to say anything useful in implicating him. But Client made no such statements and her efforts only made her look all the more untruthful. The ex-wife also admitted that she had attempted to get money and insurance coverage from Client during divorce proceedings, alleging the same violent acts upon which he was tried. The divorce court rejected her claims and awarded her nothing.

The Government’s expert witness testified, under cross-examination, the obvious fact that women may falsely accuse their husband of abuse in order to harm them and/or to get money or other benefit from the husband, and that recantation a of an allegation of abuse can be true.

Our client didn’t testify at his trial, as we assured him that it was unnecessary. We argued to the mixed panel of three senior Enlisted Marines, 1 Naval Officer and 2 Marine Officers that the only thing known for sure was that the ex-wife was a liar and that her outrageous claims were not corroborated by any other credible evidence.

After hearing four days of testimony and viewing dozens of pages of Family Advocacy Program records of the ex-wife’s counseling sessions, the military members deliberated from 0800-1700 on the fifth day and acquitted Client of all charges and specifications.

Client’s outstanding Naval career continues.

U.S. v. SGM FLG: Client, the Command Sergeant Major for a large Army unit, was falsely accused by two subordinate female NCO’s of having sexually assaulted and/or sexually harassed them while on duty. Also, when Client and his spouse – herself a service member – had a mutual verbal argument at their home, military police charged him with having physically assaulted the spouse. They ignored the spouse’s assurances that neither party touched the other one and that the incident was only a oral argument by the happily-married couple.

At the Article 32 Preliminary Hearing prior to referral of charges to trial by General Court-Martial, the female NCO alleged she had been sexually assaulted on multiple occasions and gave detailed testimony of how and when she had been assaulted.

However, shortly before trial was to commence, the Defense provided to Government Counsel evidence of an alibi showing Client was not even the same State as the accuser at the time of the alleged sexual assaults and that it was impossible that he was guilty of the allegations. Upon seeing this information, the Government changed the dates in the charge sheet to a single date, several months earlier than the original allegations, and attempted to go to trial on the radically-changed dates and circumstances.

We objected to this procedure and demanded the Government re-investigate the matter at another Article 32 Preliminary Hearing. The Military Judge agreed with us and the Government dismissed all charges.

The Government later decided not to pursue any criminal charges in the case.

Client continues his outstanding Army career.

U.S. v. SGT D.S. -- Client, a Marine Corps Recruiter in the mid-west, began carrying a personal firearm in his Government Owned Vehicle in the wake of the terrorist attacks upon a Recruiting Office and Reserve Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

During the course of an investigation of the Recruiter for suspected misconduct in making false entries in the files of potential Recruits, Client was asked whether he possessed a firearm in the office or his GOV. Client initially denied this, but later admitted to having the firearm in his GOV.

The Command seized the weapon and charges were referred to a Special Court-Martial on allegations that he had violated a lawful General Order prohibiting Recruiters from carrying weapons and for False Official Statement for his initial denial of this fact.

We filed motions to suppress his statements to superiors regarding the incident and to suppress the search of the GOV in which the weapon was recovered. Our motions were partially granted by the Military Judge, but the search of the GOV was upheld.

At that point, we asked the Government to withdraw the charges from the court-martial and to send them only to an NJP – Office Hours.

Client's Battalion Commander agreed and the criminal charges were dropped.

Client received only the non-judicial punishment and now continues to have a clean criminal history.

Matter of JH: Client, an American citizen, was employed by a Government Contractor and worked for the U.S. Department of Defense in the Republic of Korea. While at local nightspot, one evening, he met an attractive female American expatriate living in Korea. They spent several hours together, that night, and at some point ended up at his apartment. Shortly before daybreak, the woman left his residence and refused his offer of a ride home.

Several days later, Client was approached by U.S. Army CID agents and Korean National Police officers who informed him that the woman had accused him of rape.

Client did not then make a statement, and retained our firm to help. Upon our advice, he refused to make any statements to American and Korean authorities. This was especially hard from him when the Korean authorities would serve him with orders to appear at Korean National Police Headquarters for interrogation. But he consistently followed our advice.

We contacted the Korean and American authorities and protested this overly-aggressive action by their agents, at which time the American agents relented and stopped attempting to speak with him.

The Korean agents then focused their attention on the young woman. From our investigation, we learned that this woman frequented that particular bar and had made similar allegations against other American and European patrons, and that each such case had been dropped at her urging after the men had paid her compensation.

It was clear that this was a scam by the American woman to obtain money from unsuspecting suitors who were placed in fear of incarceration in a Korean prison lest they pay her ransom!

Client was provided with an appointed Korean attorney to represent him, directly, in the Korean investigation. However Client required his Korean attorney to discuss with us all matters of the case and to get our concurrence on any actions to be taken.

We steadfastly recommended against our client making any statements to the Korean agents and against agreeing to pay the complainant female any money, over the constant suggestions of the

Korean counsel that this was "standard business" in such cases and that it may help stop the investigation. At some point the Korean attorney recommended our client pay the woman a sum equal to $15,000. We argued against this, and the client followed our advice.

After six months of anguish, Client was rewarded for his steadfast posture when Korean prosecutors filed a dismissal of the matter. Client was never charged with an offense, and never paid a cent of ransom to the complainant.

Matter of LM: Client, an American citizen, was employed by a Government Contractor and worked for the U.S. Department of Defense in Afghanistan. While in Ireland on vacation, he met an attractive young Irish woman at a bar and wound up spending the evening with her.

Weeks after this escapade and his return to Afghanistan, Client was contacted by his mother, in the U.S., who informed him that INTERPOL had sent an agent to her home and notified her that they were looking for her son as part of a rape investigation from an incident in Ireland.

Client retained us and we immediately made liaison with INTERPOL and the Detective in Ireland who was spear-heading the investigation.

We learned that, a few days after her evening with Client, the young Irish lass had reported to local authorities that she had been rendered incapacitated by drink or a date-rape drug and that she did not consent to sexual contact that night.

I notified INTERPOL and the Irish authorities that my client was innocent of the allegations and refused to let them interview him. I invited them to send any questions to me and assured them

I would review the questions and provide answers for any that I thought pertinent.

They of course refused to do this.

Over the course of more than two years, the agencies investigated the case, but were never allowed to speak with Client. At some point they finally admitted that without his statement their case was incomplete and not worthy of indictment, and certainly insufficient to obtain his extradition from the U.S. to Ireland.

They closed the case as unfounded and notified us that it was finally over.

U.S. v. HS: Navy Petty Officer prosecuted at Special Court-Martial on multiple allegations of Sexual Assault upon subordinate male sailors under his direction, and violation of Navy Regs prohibiting Sexual Harassment and barring racial and gender discrimination in the workplace.

After a 3-day contested court-martial before Military Members, he was acquitted of all charges except one specification of having sexually harassed two female sailors in his section by making lewd comments, in violation of a Navy Reg.

Government prosecutors argued that he should be discharged from the Naval Service with a Bad Conduct Discharge, plus other punishments. We countered that, under the circumstances of this case, they should consider imposing a sentence of No Punishment.

The members deliberated two hours before sentencing him to a Letter of Reprimand and to serve Hard Labor Without Confinement for 30 days. The Command immediately served our client with notice that they intended to seek an Administrative Discharge Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, despite the fact that he was then within six weeks of retiring with 20 years of Honorable service.

The Administrative Discharge Board was conducted 2 weeks later and the Command was represented at the Board by its own Staff Judge Advocate -- the Convening Authority's own attorney. The Command SJA argued that our client should be discharged Under Other Than Honorable Conditions, or in the alternative, that he be retired at a lower rank.

After deliberating one hour, the Board rendered a unanimous decision that he be retained in the Navy and allowed to retire with no reduction in rank.

U.S. v. TP: Army Warrant Officer in Rotary Wing Flight School was suspended after CID Agents searched his home and found drugs and drug paraphernalia in a cabinet. The Officer's wife was interviewed and told the agents her husband used marijuana, frequently, and that he was verbally and physically abusive to her. The Command opened a 15-6 Command Investigation, and Army CID conducted its own, simultaneous investigation. Immediately upon being retained, we contacted the Command Investigating Officer and the CID agents and told them the Warrant Officer would assert his right to remain silent.

We then discussed with them the situation involving him and his estranged wife. We pointed out that she was of Eastern-European birth, had no doubt married the Warrant Officer because of his American passport so that she could immigrate to the U.S., informed that she had been caught in an extra-marital affair and that the couple was now pending a divorce and her loss of lawful status in the U.S. This was a matter of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" on steroids!

We also had the Warrant Officer undergo a urinalysis and hair analysis by a commercial laboratory and submitted the negative test results to the Command. These results were consistent with the negative urinalysis results from the Army's own frequent testing of pilot-trainees. That is, we presented scientific proof he was not a drug user, directly contradicting the sworn statements by the vindictive, promiscuous estranged wife. The Command dropped the criminal investigation and re-enrolled the Warrant Officer, who successfully continued flight school.

U.S. v. MAJ JD: Military Officer whose wife called Military Police and falsely reported being attacked by her husband. Investigators noted remnants of bruising on her leg, consistent with physical assault. His Commander ordered a criminal investigation and it appeared likely the case would go to a Court-Martial or be directed towards administrative separation proceedings, either of which could have ended his career and robbed him of retirement benefits.

After our investigation revealed that the wife had been playing soccer with their kids and had been kicked by their son during the game, she confessed that she had received the bruise from the game and that she had falsely accused her husband of assault because she wanted to end his military career and prevent him from having to deploy. The couple remains married and are undergoing counseling for the marital discord, but the Officer's record is unblemished.

U.S. v. SGT KG: Marine NCO returned from Afghanistan to learn that, during his combat tour, his wife had reported to law enforcement authorities that he had sexually abused her, including allegations of rape and forcible sodomy. Additionally, the wife accused her husband of having beaten her to ensure her silence. All of this was false, of course. The NCO's father discussed this matter with me, in detail, and received advice on how to proceed.

All of this was relayed to the NCO and we commenced our aggressive defense. When the father contacted a friend who was a SGTMAJ at HQMC and informed him that I was representing the NCO, the matter took on a different level of attention. Within one week, the investigation was dropped. Most importantly, the NCO's career was unaffected.

U.S. v. TSGT G, USAF: General Court-Martial of an Air Force Master Military Training Instructor on charges of rape, forcible sodomy and inappropriate relationship with a female trainee under his direction. We demanded the appearance of the complainant female Airman at the Article 32 Investigation and through an aggressive cross-examination were able to elicit from her numerous inconsistencies which contradicted earlier written statements she had made to OSI Agents. Then, during trial before a mixed panel of senior Air Force Officer and Enlisted personnel, we were able to point out even more inconsistencies in her many statements. Very importantly, when the Government produced one of the females prior husbands to testify as to her "good character for truthfulness" we were able to establish a motive for the female to have lied during the initial investigation and to have continued her lies through trial. The jury required little time in returning findings of "Not Guilty" to all charges.

U.S. v. SGT R, USMC: Sniper Team Leader with 3rd Battalion, 2d Marines, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, who was videotaped joining three of his Marines as they urinated on three dead insurgent terrorists in Afghanistan, some of the dozen whom they had killed some hours earlier. When the video of this incident was sold to an online media site by a disgruntled, traitorous fellow Marine, it created a stir throughout the Marine Corps, DOD, the State Department and the White House. During our investigation and preparation for trial, we discovered evidence that the Commandant of the Marine Corps personally interfered in the processing of this case, to the extent that he traveled to Southwest Asia, and met privately with the Commanding General of Marine Corps Forces Central Command, who was then in charge of the case. During the tense confrontation, CMC told MARCENT that he wanted the snipers "crushed" and expected that they would all be referred to trial by General Courts-Martial and discharged from the Marine Corps. When that courageous LtGen refused to be intimidated by CMC, the cases were removed from him and assigned to a LtGen at Quantico, where it was presumed by CMC that he would get the results he wanted.

We also obtained, over time and despite the best efforts of CMC and his Legal Advisors in the Pentagon, e-mails between CMC and other Marine General Officers in which he made clear his desires of extreme punishment of these enlisted NCO's. Ultimately, after sworn statements were obtained from MARCENT and others proving CMC had attempted to, and thereafter did, commit Unlawful Command Influence in the processing of the cases of these NCO's, charges against our client were dropped and it was disposed of non-judicially. Our client has since been medically retired at 100% disability. Importantly, none of the snipers were made to stand General Courts-Martial and many were never even identified to the media. One of the other positive aspects of this case was our ability to establish that both of the two LtGen's of Marines whom CMC hoped to influence bravely resisted his attempts and ignored his unlawful actions. Thus, we know there still are Marine Generals fully deserving of the title Marine.

U.S. v. CW2 KDY. Army CW2 stationed at Camp Humphreys, ROK, charged with aggravated assaults upon a superior officer, aggravated assault by the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm by kicking the officer and breaking his eye socket, and aggravated assault with force likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm by choking the officer, plus assault consummated by battery upon a Korean civilian. The gov't presented eyewitness testimony of multiple soldiers and civilian who claimed to have seen the assaults and/or been the victims. General court-martial tried before six commissioned and warrant officers, four and one-half deliberation: Not guilty to all charges and specifications.

U.S. v. SSG BD. Army SSG charged with dereliction of duty and violation of lawful general order in connection with the suicide of a subordinate soldier in Afghanistan. After Article 32 conducted at Kandahar Air Field, charges were referred to general court-martial. We successfully negotiated the withdrawal of all from a GCM and referral, instead, to a special court-Martial. At trial, the SSG pled guilty to the violation of General Order 1, drinking vodka in theater, in concert with another SSG. We fought the remaining charges of dereliction by allowing subordinates to use racial slurs and to allowing subordinates to physically abuse the soldier who committed suicide -- all defeated. The SSG was sentenced to lose one stripe and to serve 90 days confinement. However, the military judge granted our motion to give the SSG credit for unlawful pretrial punishment in that the unit stripped the SSG of his leadership duties, deprived him the right to carry a weapon while remaining in Afghanistan, denied him mid-tour leave and refused to let him return to Ft Wainwright with his unit during redeployment to CONUS and instead sent him to Ft Bragg, thus depriving him and his family of participating in the homecoming festivities at the home post. The MJ credited him with 90 days, thus canceling out all confinement.

U.S. v. 1LT ED. Air Force officer is tried by general court-martial for multiple specifications alleging possession, use and distribution of cocaine. Evidence presented by the Gov't included a video-tape of the undercover sale of purported cocaine to client by a North Carolina Narcotics agent, plus the testimony of fellow 1LT who earlier had pled guilty to conspiring with Client to commit the charged offenses and who had received a dismissal, confinement and other punishments. After aggressive cross-examination of Air Force OSI and North Carolina State agents, and even-more aggressive cross-examination of the cooperating 1LT, the panel of Military Members acquitted Client of all charges.

U.S. v. PO2 CH. Coast Guardsman is charged with unlawful use of controlled substances. After preparation of scientific evidence which contradicted the Gov't scientific evidence, all charges were dropped.

U.S. v. MSGT LM. Air Force client is charged with dereliction of duty in connection with suicide committed by a subordinate airman who was then facing trial by court-martial on various criminal charges. This was the first known instance of a superior in any branch of the armed forces being charged with dereliction in connection with a suicide. The mixed panel of officer and enlisted members acquitted client after brief deliberation, exonerating her and allowing her to continue her stellar career.

U.S. v. 2LT TR. Air Force officer was charged with aggravated sexual assault upon a female 1LT who falsely claimed Client had attempted to rape her and had committed indecent assaults upon her in her off-base apartment. After aggressive cross-examination of the female 1LT established that she had invited the 2LT to her home, had cooked for him, had drank more than one bottle wine with him, had thereafter lay down at his feet and invited him to straddle her while giving her a back rub, then led him into her bedroom, lay down on her bed and slid over so he would have room to do so, and quite a bit more embarrassing admissions by the female, all charges were dropped shortly after the Article 32 Investigation.

U.S. v. CSM GT. Army CSM in Europe was charged with rape, aggravated sexual assault, adultery and fraternization. Upon his arrest, client made statements to CID which appeared to be confessional in nature. After thorough cross-examination of the purported victim at the Art 32 Investigation Hearing, the rape charge was dropped, but remaining charges were referred trial by general court-martial. After aggressive cross-examination of the female complainant at trial, and contradiction of the Govt DNA expert by the defense's DNA expert, the mixed panel of officer and senior enlisted members acquitted client of all charges, including those to which he had earlier confessed.

United States v. B.B. Army Captain accused by ex-wife of rape, forcible sodomy and aggravated assault. General Courts-Martial, Jury trial, Full Acquittal.

United States v. M.W. Army SGT charged with 2 specifications of negligent homicide for driving tracked vehicle over 2 Korean teenage girls. Jury trial by General Courts-Martial, at Camp Casey, ROK, acquitted on all. Riots erupt throughout S. Korea at announcement of verdict.

United States v. M.L. Army CWO, helo pilot, accused of tape-recording conversations of co-workers in violation of Federal wire-tapping laws. Charges dismissed.

United States v. D.B. Army Major confessed to wrongfully using government credit card to obtain money to pay for wife’s gambling debts. Case dismissed for insufficient evidence.

United States v. N.B. Army NCO, mail clerk, accused of stealing mail in Iraq. All charges dismissed.

State Criminal Cases

State of Texas v. “Texas Tech football players” [unofficial] – Client, who is a former Texas Tech football player, was indicted for second-degree felony burglary of a habitation, a charge that could conclude in 2 to 20 years imprisonment. During initial investigations, Client and two other alleged suspects who were not represented by Guy L. Womack & Associates, P.C. each admit to committing the burglary of an unoccupied home while on winter break. The collected statements include that several firearms and a corresponding gun safe was stolen, as well as miscellaneous other items.

Attorney Guy Womack concludes after speaking with Client that Client is remorseful for committing the criminal activity. Client, who is only 20 years old, is intelligent, resourceful, and hopeful of finishing his educational degree and starting a professional career later in life. Any conviction would certainly create a serious hindrance to leading a normal life with gainful employment.

In less than four months, Attorney Guy Womack creates a pretrial diversion agreement and presents it to the District Attorney assigned to the case. It is accepted, despite the charges already having been filed. Client and unrepresented defendants are each granted the pretrial diversion agreement and held to its standards.

Instead of facing trial, criminal charges, and potential prison time, Client only needs to complete 24 hours of community service and theft intervention program. If pretrial agreements are not met, the District Attorney can refile the same charges against Client. Attorney Guy Womack is confident Client will finish pretrial agreements without incident and was quoted as saying that Client is a “great kid.”

State of Texas v. J.D. -- Client was involved in an accident. The person our client hit claimed to have witnessed our client throw a bag of cocaine into the ditch. Police recovered the drugs and confirmed the substance was cocaine. Attorneys from Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. prepared a Grand Jury Packet, showing the weakness of the Government's case, the lack of police investigation, and the absurdity of the "witness" statement. The Grand Jury agreed and "no billed" the case against J.D. Meaning J.D. had the case dismissed and our client was not deported!

State of Texas v. M.W. -- Client was home with his family one afternoon when an aggressive salesperson approached our client's front door. Our client allowed the salesperson to perform a cleaning demonstration inside the home.

During this demonstration, 3 other "salesmen" got out of the car and approached the house. Our client told the original aggressive salesman to leave his house -- the salesman refused at lest 10-15 request to leave.

Fearing for his family's safety, our client physically removed the salesman from his house. The salesman called the police. Our client called Geoff Womack. Mr. Womack immediately drove to our client's residence and got the police and the District Attorney's Office to refuse charges. Even after all this, and to our shock and laughter, the "salesmen" did offer our client and the police officer a "great bargain" on a vacuum cleaner -- they all declined!

State of Texas v. J.G. -- Our client was a plant worker in Texas. He was accused of beating a co-worker with a climbing tool -- breaking the complaining witness' hand and bruising his face -- the alleged assault was reported by the "victim" and a witness. Attorneys from Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. immediately investigated the case and discovered the complaining "victim" was not trustworthy. Our attorneys quickly pointed out the difficulties of the case and the District Attorney's Office refused charges! Our client never had to go to court and the case was never filed!

Case dismissed!

State of Texas v. CT. Teacher / Student Sex Case Dismissed - Client was a school teacher in a highly-regarded high school. When law enforcement authorities commenced an investigation of his having a sexual relationship with a minor female student, client was suspended from the institution and charged with rape of the minor.

We were hired shortly after his arrest and set out to mitigate the damages to client's professional life and personal life. After several months of intensive investigation of the circumstances of the case, during which time we offered to make a presentation to the Grand Jury at such time, as they met to consider this case for Indictment, all charges were dismissed.

Client has been exonerated and allowed to continue his career in education.

State of Texas v. MSS and FSS. Narcotics Conspiracy Case Dismissed - Client and his brother were illegal aliens arrested after delivering a kilogram of Methamphetamine to undercover agents with a joint Federal and State drug task force, under the ruse the agents were drug traffickers intending to distribute the methamphetamine.

After Client showed the "buyer" the large cache of methamphetamine, he was directed to drive to another location to receive payment. However, as soon as Client left the scene of the meeting and drove onto the highway, he was stopped by a police cruiser on a "traffic offense" and ultimately his car was searched and the methamphetamine was seized by authorities. Despite the large quantity of the methamphetamine, Client and his brother were turned over to State authorities and his case was charged in the State court.

We were retained to represent both brothers, days later. Our firm has handled many such cases in which Federal authorities would initially "park" a defendant in State custody while continuing their investigation without having to comply with strict Federal Speedy Trial regulations. We immediately recognized the tactic being used herein.

Sensing that this was not a happenstance traffic stop that resulted in the seizure, we filed motions with the State Court to require the Government to identify the Informant who led Task Force officers to Clients in order to form the basis for motions to suppress evidence. After several months of the Government trying to avoid these disclosures, the Court was poised to order a hearing into the matter.

Rather than disclosing this information, which could have jeopardized the Task Force's continuing investigation, the State prosecutor dismissed all charges against both clients.

The clients were turned over to Immigration authorities and, upon advice from us that they should request immediately repatriation to Mexico, the clients were allowed to leave the U.S., and won't be prosecuted for their part of this matter.

State of Texas v. Ro.S. -- Client dabbled in buying and selling used cars and obtained a Dealers' License so that he could attend and participate in auto auctions around the State.

At one such auction, Client bought a high-end luxury SUV of German manufacture. Client properly titled the vehicle in the name of his dealership, then shipped the car to an associate in the Middle East where it was sold to a foreign buyer for more than the car would sell for new in the U.S.

Unfortunately, when the foreign buyer attempted to register the vehicle, it was learned that the VIN on the windshield did not match that found on the frame, engine and other parts of the vehicle. In fact, it appeared the vehicle was a different year model than stated on the Texas DMV documents.

INTERPOL and Texas authorities commenced a joint investigation and we were immediately retained.

We submitted to Texas authorities documentation provided us by Client, tending to show he had bought the vehicle in good faith and reasonably relied upon the documentation in titling the vehicle and shipping it to the Middle East for re-sale at a great profit. Indeed, Texas authorities had titled the vehicle in his name, without questioning the authenticity of the underlying documentation.

Upon our advice, Client made no statements to State and foreign investigators and did not respond to requests for information from attorneys in the Middle East representing various parties in a civil suit to recover the funds paid for the vehicle.

After a two-year investigation by State and foreign authorities, the matter with regard to criminal charges against Client were dropped and he is no longer having to worry about this.

State of Texas v. A.C-V. -- Client, an illegal alien from Mexico, was stopped by Houston Police Department officers on a minor traffic offense. Because Client seemed extremely nervous, the officers asked for and obtained from him permission to search his vehicle. They found a small amount of methamphetamine and a 9mm handgun in the console. Further investigation showed that the handgun had been stolen from a used car during a test drive of the vehicle by Client in a town quite some distance from Houston, a few months earlier.

While Client was pending trial in the District Court, we got Client's bond lowered and he posted bond. Because there was a detainer for him by U.S. Immigration authorities, Client was not released, but turned over to Immigration. Within a month of his arriving at the Immigration facility, Client waived Removal Proceedings and agreed to be deported, which was carried out immediately.

When the State court learned Client had been deported back to Mexico, they dismissed the pending case.

One year later, Client was found back in the U.S., in Houston, transporting a multi-kilogram quantity of cocaine in a vehicle. During interrogation by Federal and State authorities in a narcotics task force, Client denied knowing he was carrying drugs, and stated he was being paid $100 to deliver a rare brand of cheese to someone in San Antonio. Law Enforcement officials found this incredible and arrested him.

Because of the still-existing, pending case in State court, and because of the stringent nature of the Federal Speedy Trial Act, the two sovereigns agreed the State would proceed with their old case while the new matter was investigated.

After Client had been in custody for several months, we negotiated a plea agreement on the old case in which Client would only serve a short additional period in a State Jail Facility and crossed our fingers that the Federal authorities would not act on the larger case until that sentence was completed.

Just as hoped, Client completed the short sentence on the old case, was immediately turned over to Immigration, and was again deported to Mexico, without having been charged with the larger case.

Assuming Client is never again found in the U.S., he will escape being tried on the newer case.

State of Texas v. S.J.H. -- DEA agents on the East Coast investigating a Mexican drug cartel traced leads to Houston and located a known load vehicle from their investigation parked at client's home. Through intimidation of client and a guest at the home, agents gained access to the house and seized 12 kilos of meth, 10 kilos of cocaine, three kilos of marijuana and a cache of "assault-style" rifles, shotguns and pistols.

Client and seven others were arrested and bonds of $1 million and higher were set for each. Client and most co-defendants were illegal aliens from Mexico.

Client denied knowledge of the narcotics and firearms, despite the fact the items were found in the bedrooms, under a baby crib and in closets throughout the home.

As is common in large Federal narcotics investigations, the case was initially "parked" in State court, where there is no effective Speedy Trial rule.

After a few weeks of the State prosecutor not providing meaningful discovery, we approached the State Judge, pointed out that the court was being used by the Federal authorities to avoid stringent U.S. Speedy Trial rules, and when the prosecutor could not truthfully deny our allegations, the Judge lowered the bond on Client to a fraction of the original amount and Client was able to post a bond.

Through aggressive discovery and refusal to entertain a plea agreement, Federal authorities declined to take the case against Client, probably in order to avoid revealing details of the multi-state investigation.

Finally, a year after the case started, the case was docketed for trial. On the eve of trial, the State prosecutor agreed to a plea agreement for Deferred Adjudication, whereby Client pled guilty only to the lesser included offense of simple possession of a controlled substance, the gun charges were dropped, and Client was placed on probation for 6 years. At the expiration of the probationary period – which can be terminated earlier than full term – the case will be dismissed by the Court and Client will have no conviction, at all.

That is, an obvious Federal drug trafficking case involving 27 kilos of meth, cocaine and marijuana and numerous weapons was reduced to a State case that will be dismissed at the end of probation!

And Client continues to reside in the U.S.

State of Texas v. GS -- When a 13 year old girl's mom was released from prison after her ninth conviction for prostitution, the little girl hoped CPS would return her to the custody of the mother. However the State considered the options -- the mother was not a proper custodian for the girl, and her loving, hard-working father had been killed in an auto accident -- so they continued custody with her grandparents. However, the grandparents were strict disciplinarians and made the girl and her older siblings attend school and church services. They also punished her when she committed offenses like stealing jewelry and breaking into school buildings. In an obvious attempt at reuniting with her mother, the little girl promptly reported to school officials that her grandfather had sexually molested her for the past year.

Instead of returning her to her mother, the State placed her in the custody of an aunt and uncle. And the State indicted the 70-year old grandfather, despite the fact that the only evidence was the unsupported claim by the little girl. We were retained shortly before his originally-scheduled trial date and commenced our representation. When our investigation uncovered the above information and other facts destroying the credibility of the girl, the State delayed the trial in order to confirm or refute our findings. Finally, more than a year after this case started -- on the morning trial was finally to commence -- the State dismissed all charges against our client. The State offered no apology for having put him through this harrowing ordeal.

State of Texas v. CJJM -- Client was indicted on conspiracy to commit Organized Crime by trafficking in methamphetamine. The allegations were that he was part of an extensive ring of meth traffickers who distributed multiple kilograms of this drug to persons and groups across Texas and the Southwestern U.S. Most of his co-defendants were prosecuted in Federal Court, facing a mandatory range of punishment of not less than 10 years and up to Life imprisonment. But due to the scope of his alleged involvement, our client was charged in State Court, with a corresponding range of punishment of no less than 15 years, up to Life in prison. When his initial retained attorneys recommended he accept a State plea offer of 10 years imprisonment, requiring him to admit to actions beyond what he actually did, this Defendant fired his defense team and retained our firm to represent him.

Within months of being retained, the State lowered their offer to 7 years confinement and agreed to cut out some of the alleged acts from the Indictment. Our client rejected this offer, too. After further discussions with the District Attorney, who was personally prosecuting this case, the State dismissed the Indictment and re-filed a new one alleging less-serious drug trafficking in the hopes our client would plead guilty. But the new allegations were still inflated and no deal was accepted. Further, we pointed out to the State some conflicting former testimony by their star witness, made in Federal court pursuant to a grant of immunity and as part of his own plea agreement. That testimony directly contradicted the witness' current statements attempting to incriminate our client, and would have destroyed his credibility. However, there were numerous intercepted telephone calls between our client and other co-defendants that could suffice to convict him of much of the misconduct.

Finally, days before the start of the jury trial on the Indictment, the State made an acceptable offer of a plea only to money laundering in exchange for a period of Deferred Adjudication and a $500 fine. That is, after paying the $500 and completing a probationary period, the charges will be dismissed and our client will have no criminal conviction, at all. As a sidelight to this resolution, the client's case in an adjoining county of possession of methamphetamine was simultaneously pled to the exact same terms. That is, after serving the one period of probation, all charges will be dismissed and client will have a clean criminal history!

State of Texas v. A.K. -- Client was heading home from a night out with client's spouse. Client was stopped for speeding -- 101 in a 65 mph zone. The officer performed a field sobriety test on client and asked if client would submit to a portable breath test (PBT). Client refused, even after the officer advised that client had done well on the standard field sobriety tests (SFST's). Officer arrested Client, asked for a sample of client's blood, and client refused. The officer obtained a warrant, had a blood sample taken, and the results came back at a .14 blood alcohol content (BAC). Client's spouse immediately retained our firm. Lawyers for our firm helped get client out of jail and walked our client through the entire process of DWI in Texas. After reviewing discovery and through our firm's attorneys aggressive investigation, the case against our client was dismissed!

State of Texas v. J.A. -- DEA along with local Narcotics Task Force members received information from a confidential source that our client was a drug trafficker -- moving large shipments of Marijuana from the Rio Grande Valley to Houston, Texas and other areas. DEA tracked a vehicle which a confidential source said was carrying Marijuana in a hidden compartment in the gas tank. DEA had local officers in the Houston area pull over this vehicle for a "traffic violation". The officers sent a wire camera into the gas tank and confirmed there were packages concealed inside the tank. These officers decided to let the vehicle continue onto its destination, thereby leading the police to the "stash house" location. Local Narcotics Task Force members setup surveillance of the home. Eventually, the police were able to gain access to the home and discovered multiple bundles with the strong odor of gasoline. These bundles of totaled over 108 lbs of Marijuana. The home owner confessed to the arresting officers that he was aware of the drugs, and attempted to drag our client into the conspiracy. The home owner made the absurd allegations that our client had used the residence on multiple occasions to unload and store Marijuana. Our client quickly retained our firm. Geoff Womack began investigating the case. After a thorough investigation, Geoff Womack prepared a grand jury packet showing our client was an upstanding citizen of Mexico and not involved in any form of drug trafficking. The grand jury "no billed" our clients case --meaning our client no longer had to deal with stress of a felony prosecution and the case was dismissed!

State of Texas v. R.H. -- Client, who is in his early twenties, was out drinking with friends. They logged onto their Tinder account and found a couple of girls interested in meeting them. At 3:00am, client and friends pickup these girls and go back to a local motel. Unbeknownst to the client, the girl was 16 years old. The girls had lied about their age on the Tinder account. The girls parents discovered that she was not in her room and tracked her location via her iPhone. The police and her parents discovered the girl in client's truck in the parking lot of the motel. Client was arrested and charged with sexual contact with a minor. Client retained Guy Womack & Associates. Our firm immediately began investigating the case and speaking with witnesses. We were able to obtain multiple letters speaking highly about our client. Geoff Womack was able to speak to the family of the girl -- to the family's credit, they were extremely cooperative and supportive of our client. The district attorney's office would not dismiss the case and decided to let the grand jury decide. Geoff Womack put together an extensive packet together for the grand jury to review -- the grand jury did the right thing and "no billed" the case. Meaning all charges were dropped against the client!

State of Texas v. J.R. -- Client was probation for a DWI. One of the conditions of client's probation was the client could not drink alcohol while on probation. Unfortunately, client violated this condition multiple times. The district attorney's office filed a motion to revoke probation (MRP) -- requesting the client's probation be revoked and the client sentenced to a year in prison. Client retained Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. because of their reputation as an aggressive criminal defense firm and the fact that Guy Womack is a retired Officer of Marines. The client is an air traffic controller and the client would lose this job if the probation was revoked. Attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. went to court with client, spoke with the judge, the assistant district attorney and the court liaison officer (the liaison between the court and the probation office). After a hearing, the judge did the right thing and allowed the client to continue on probation with no added conditions! Meaning it is as if the violations never occurred! Client is still proudly working as an air traffic controller!

State of Texas v. K.A. -- Client was driving an F250 pickup truck. Client drove into an intersection, striking an individual crossing the crosswalk. Client was charged with this accident. Client is a prominent resident and needed to protect his name. Client hired Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. After an investigation and meeting with the prosecuting attorney, Geoff Womack was able to get the Government to dismiss the case against our Client. Client's reputation remained unscathed!

State of Texas v. E.V. -- Client was out at a country and western bar with his girlfriend. The couple arrived at her house around 2:30am. The couple began to argue. Neighbors heard the couple arguing and called the police. The Police came to the scene and accused the Client of assaulting his girlfriend. Client needed aggressive criminal defense representation. The client hired Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. Attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. quickly investigated the case and set the case for trial. The district attorneys office repeatedly tried to get the Client to enter a guilty a plea. Client almost took the offer, but attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. advised against doing so. On the day of the pretrial conference, the case was dismissed! Client and his girlfriend remain a happy couple today!

State of Texas v. J.B. -- Client accused of possession of controlled substance. Our attorneys aggressively defended client against this accusations. Refused all plea offers, set the case for a trial, and our client was awarded a dismissal for our aggressive representation. Client was able to maintain employment in the oilfield!

The State of Texas v. GS. -- The client, a 60 year old man, was accused of sexually molesting a 12 year old girl, continuously, over a period of three-plus years, starting when she was about 7 years old through age 10 years. Our client was arrested and jailed on a $4 million bond. We were retained a month later. After interviewing the client in the County jail, during which he consistently claimed to be innocent of the allegations, we contacted the DA's Office and sought dismissal of the charges or, in the alternative, to get the bond lowered.

The DA's declined and informed us that they were still investigating the case and likely wouldn't be ready to seek a Grand Jury Indictment for another three to five months. They also opposed a reduction of the bond. Faced with this stonewalling by the Government, we filed a motion demanding an immediate Examining Trial. At the hearing, we were able to confront the girl, cross-examine her, and develop her testimony more thoroughly than had the CPS Social Workers and Gov't agents. Her sworn testimony differed significantly from her earlier statements, each of which was also inconsistent.

As a result of the information heard by the District Court at the hearing, the Judge lowered the bond to $10,000 and the client was able to bond out. We again encouraged the State to dismiss the case, but they still declined and indicted the case a couple of months later. After aggressively pushing the Court to set the case for trial, the matter was scheduled for trial. At the Pretrial Conference, a week before trial was to start, the Gov't dismissed all charges and the Court ordered all bond money immediately returned to Client.

State of Texas v. J.S. -- Client had just moved from California to Texas. While traveling from Houston to Dallas, our client was pulled over by a Texas DPS Trooper. The Trooper questioned our client and become suspicious of our client's behavior. After a few minutes, the Trooper was searching our client's vehicle. The Trooper discovered thousands of dollars in U.S. currency and over 90 vials of Human Growth Hormone (HGH). Our client was arrested for money laundering and possession of a dangerous drug. Attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. were retained and immediately began working on the case. After one court appearance and multiple conversations with the prosecuting attorneys, attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. were able to get all charges dismissed, our client's money returned and all of the HGH returned to our client!

State of Texas v. L.M. -- Client was charged with Assault of Family Member by Impeding Breath, a felony in Texas. The State of Texas alleged that our client brutally attacked and choked his girlfriend. We immediately investigated these allegations. Because of a thorough investigation, we were able to discovery a checkered past of the complaining witness, including other false claims of abuse. We put together a detailed presentation to the Grand Jury. Prior to the next setting, the Grand Jury "no billed" the case, meaning the charges were dismissed!

State of Texas v. R.H. -- Client was 1 week shy of turning 21. He decided to celebrate a little early at a local country and western bar. Our client was eventually arrested and charged for public intoxication (a misdemeanor) and with intent to defraud another by use of identification of another (a felony in Texas). Our client retained our firm and we immediately began contacting the district attorney's office. After a few conversations, the district attorney's office dismissed the felony charge, thereby saving our client's job in the oilfield.

State of Texas v. L.C. -- Client was a decorated Vietnam Veteran. While driving home after playing a round of golf, client was involved in an auto accident -- causing the client to be knocked unconscious. Harris County Constables arrived on the scene and began slapping the client in the face to "awaken" him. Client became agitated by the Constable's antics. The Constables tackled the client to the ground and accused him of driving while intoxicated. Because of the quick and aggressive representation by attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, the clients case was dismissed after the first court appearance!

State of Texas v. B.H. -- Client was charged with possession of marijuana. Client's house was searched by the local police. The police discovered a hidden room, equipped for growing marijuana. This hidden room had multiple full grown plants. After aggressive investigation and representation by Geoff Womack, the case was dismissed against his client!

State of Texas v. R.C. -- Client was charged with domestic violence. The State of Texas alleged our client struck his fiancé multiple times with a closed fist, causing two blacked eyes. The case was dismissed after aggressive investigation by lawyers for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C., including multiple interviews of the complaining witness and other family and friends. Geoff Womack moved to have the case set for trial and the Government dismissed the case prior to jury selection. Our client walked out of court with Guy Womack and Geoff Womack!

State of Texas v. R.R. -- Client was charged with injury to the elderly. Client was involved in a confrontation with an individual who was over 65 years old. Our client punched the driver's side window out of the complaining witness's vehicle. After putting together a presentation to the Grand Jury, our client's case was "no-billed." Meaning our client's case was dismissed!

State of Texas v. D.M. -- Client was charged with assault on a public servant. Our client involved in an argument with his neighbor's 30 year old sons. The police were called to the scene. Upon arrival, the police knocked and announced their presence at our client's residence. Our client opened and shut the door. The police kicked in the door and began to wrestle with our client. The State of Texas alleged our client used a baseball bat to strike one of the officers. Because of aggressive and relentless investigation by attorneys for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C., Geoff Womack was able to put together an in depth presentation to the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury ultimately agreed with Guy Womack & Associates, P.C.'s rendition of the facts and the Grand Jury "no-billed" our client's case. Meaning our client's case was dismissed!

State of Texas v. R.R. -- Young single mother / college student was arrested by police after they received an anonymous tip from a man claiming to be a burglar and who said he discovered kilogram packages of cocaine in a house he had broken into. Police responded to the abandoned house, entered the dwelling, and confirmed the complaint. Although no one had lived in the house for several years, since the owners had died and left the property to their children, police arrested the young woman whose family owned the house and charged her with possession with intent to manufacture and deliver cocaine. After Guy Womack presented these facts to the Grand Jury, the case was no-billed and the charges dismissed.

State of Texas v. L.G. -- Client was arrested in Laredo, Texas with over 150 lbs of marijuana. After multiple phone calls and conversations to the District Attorney's Office, attorneys for Guy L. Womack & Assocaites were able to stop any charges from being filed. Client never had to appear in court and no charges!

State of Texas v. D.P. -- Client was charged with theft. After aggressive representation by attorneys for Guy L. Womack & Associates, the case was dismissed.

State of Texas v. D.M. -- Client was charged with assault of a family member. After aggressive representation by attorneys for Guy L. Womack & Associates, the case was dismissed. Attorney Geoff Womack was able to show the District Attorney's Office the weakness in their case and the State dismissed all charges.

State of Texas v. N.T. -- Client was observed leaving a local bar around 1:00am. The State Trooper, who was awarded the Top DWI Officer for Montgomery County by M.A.D.D., pulled over the client for following too closely and having a taillight out. The Client admitted to drinking alcohol at the bar and performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the Vertical Gaze Nystagmus test, the walk and turn, and the one legged stand test. The Trooper observed the client exhibit multiple signs of intoxication. After a two day trial, attorney's for Guy Womack & Associates, P.C. were able to obtain a NOT GUILTY verdict in one of the toughest counties on DWI's in the State of Texas.

State of Texas v. B.M. -- Client was charged with DWI. Client was observed pulling out of a bar at midnight. DPS Trooper pulled over client for traffic violation. Client failed the Standard Field Sobriety Tests and was arrested for DWI. While at the police station, the client consented to a breath test. Client blew a .19, more than twice the legal limit in Texas! After Houston attorneys Guy Womack and Geoff Womack vigorously investigated and defended the client's case, the State of Texas DISMISSED the Charges.

State of Texas v. T.C. -- Client was charged with domestic violence. After multiple times of the police being called to the residence for domestic complaints, the client was arrested. Police took photos of broken walls and doors, along with shattered glasses of wine inside the alleged crime scene. After aggressive defense by Houston attorneys at Guy Womack & Associates, the State of Texas DISMISSED the Charges.

State of Texas v. JNP.-- Client is charged with sexually assaulting an 8 year-old female. After a jury trial results in a hung jury, and after numerous subsequent motion hearings, all charges are dismissed by the State.

State of Texas v. P.K. -- Client was charged with DWI. On the eve of trial, case DISMISSED! Client's vehicle had blown 2 passenger's side tires after allegedly hitting the curb at a high rate of speed. Arresting officer claimed the client failed the field sobriety tests.

State of Georgia v. L.P. -- Client was charged with resisting arrest and public intoxication. Case dismissed weeks before trial! Client and son were celebrating the son's return from fighting in Iraq. Arresting officer began harassing client and son.

State of Texas v. A.E. -- Client was charged with DWI. On the eve of trial, case DISMISSED! Client had a night out with friends at the family owned restaurant. Client was racing another friend at speeds of over 100mph. Arresting officer claimed the client failed the field sobriety tests. After intense investigating the case, Womack & Associates' lawyers were able to discover evidence to discredit the evidence against our client!

State of Arkansas v. A.W. -- Client charged with possession of hundreds of pounds of marijuana with the Intent to Distribute. Client was arrested with 2011's largest marijuana case this Arkansas County. Original offer was 10 years in prison. After meeting with the local sheriff and elected District Attorney, client was able to plead to probation!

State of Texas v. L.M. -- Client was charged with DWI. After first court appearance, case DISMISSED! Client was on vacation from Louisiana in Bandera, Texas. Arresting officer claimed client failed the field sobriety tests. Blood results showed that client was over the legal limit of .08. At first setting, Geoff Womack aggressively attacked the probable cause for the traffic stop and the State's attorney dismissed the case!

State of Texas v. M.M. -- client was charged with two aggravated assaults with a deadly weapon. After aggressive case investigating and multiple conversations with the prosecuting attorney, case was DISMISSED! Client was accused of holding a pistol to the head of his daughter for getting on Facebook and speaking with boys. The other daughter claimed the client held a knife to her neck when she tried to defend her sister. Police mocked client for speaking with an accent and for his religious beliefs.

State of Texas v. R.S. -- Client was charged with DWI and Evading Arrest with vehicle. Case DISMISSED! After eating at a restaurant with friends, there was a fight outside of the restaurant. An off-duty police officer tried to breakup the fight. Client and friends got into a Suburban. The off-duty officer, marked police cruisers, and a helicopter began chasing the vehicle. The chase ended after another vehicle pulled in front of the Suburban, unfortunately killing the people in the other vehicle. After aggressive defense by Guy Womack, both cases were dismissed!

State of Texas v. A.K. -- Client was charged with DWI. Weeks before trial, case DISMISSED! Arresting officer claimed to have smelled a strong odor of alcohol.

State of Texas v. A.K. II -- within a year of having DWI dismissed, client was charged with another DWI. On the eve of trial, case DISMISSED! Arresting officer alleged the client failed the field sobriety test. Officer also alleged the client admitted to drinking over 12 beers. After an aggressive investigation of the case, Geoff Womack was able to find a witness who could discredit the arresting officer's opinion. After receiving this information, Geoff Womack was able to get the prosecuting attorney to dismiss all charges!

State of Texas v. C.A. -- Client charged with possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute. Prior to client's first court setting, case DISMISSED! Client's college house was raided after an informant gave information the client was dealing and growing marijuana in his house. After immediately contacting the agents involved in the raid and presenting the client's case to the prosecuting attorney, the charges were dismissed before the first court appearance!

State of Texas v. M.L. -- client charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance with the Intent to Distribute. On the eve of trial, case DISMISSED! Client was videotaped and recorded by undercover narcotics agents attempting to sell cocaine to two residents from Mississippi. Geoff Womack aggressively pointed out the weakness of the Government's case, and the prosecution dismissed all charges against client.

State of Texas v. J.R. -- Client arrested for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Case was STOPPED from being CHARGED! Client was well off executive, going through a nasty divorce. Client's ex-wife claimed the client pulled a knife on her and threatened her life. Client immediately retained Guy Womack. Guy Womack was able to contact the prosecuting attorney and stop all charges from being pursued! CHARGES NEVER FILED!

State of Texas v. J.C.H. -- client charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Case DISMISSED! Client was accused of holding a pistol to his wife's head after breaking furniture throughout the house. After an aggressive investigation of the case, the prosecution dismissed the charges!

State of Texas v. A.R. Drug trafficking, money laundering. Investigated by Joint Federal and State Drug Task Force for 5 years. Numerous searches of vehicles, houses and businesses by agents. No Charges filed.

State of Texas v. D.R. Arrested on charges of attempted murder by firing 12 9mm rounds into car of ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend on New Year’s. After our presentation to Grand Jury, No-billed by Grand Jury, all charges dropped.

State of Texas v. D.R.II. Used Car Business searched by narcotics officers when drugs were found on owner’s person & at the scene, and false compartments found in numerous used cars in inventory. Charges dismissed by DA for insufficient evidence.

State of Missouri v. K.W. USAF Airman charged with smuggling more than 10,000 hits of Ecstasy from England into Missouri via U.S. Mail. The largest Ecstasy case in history of mid-western U.S. State of Missouri dismissed all charges weeks before trial. Federal and Military courts never charged.

State of Louisiana v. H.S. Charged with manufacture and delivery of 5 kilograms of cocaine. Court ordered dismissal of all charges due to police misconduct during pretrial discovery process.

State of Alaska v. A.B. Coast Guardsman arrested and charged with raping college co-ed in State Park. All charges dismissed.

State of Texas v. V.V. Man charged with possession of firearm on school grounds. All charges dismissed.

State of Texas v. A.T. Doctor accused of sexual harassment of nurses and hospital staff. All charges dismissed, career saved.

State of Texas v. M.Y. Man accused of sexual abuse of 4 year old infant. Mother – a vengeful ex-girlfriend – testified before Grand Jury as to sex acts performed on son by dad. We made presentation to Grand Jury refuting this. Grand Jury no-billed the case. Court expunged all records of arrest and incident. Ex-girlfriend fled to Mexico to avoid being charged with perjury by Grand Jury.

State of Texas v. G.S. Indicted on charge of manufacture and delivery of 5 kilograms of cocaine. Defendant arrested by state narcotics officers at scene of delivery. Charges dismissed by DA the morning of trial.

State of Texas v. M.S. High school teacher indicted for sexual assault on 14 year old female student after confessing to a Texas Ranger. Given deferred adjudication, 30 days in custody.

State of Texas v. B.H. Charged in 7 indictments of sexually molestation of neighborhood children. All charges dismissed on eve of trial when parents of child victim refused defense demands for discovery.

State of Texas v. G.G. Defendant found in possession of 107 lb., marijuana. Was still on probation for 60 lb. marijuana case in another city. Dismissed for lack of evidence.

Federal Employment Law Cases

FBI v. D.H. Senior FBI special agent fired for sexual harassment of female special agents and other government employees. Appeared before Office of Professional Responsibility Board - re-instated with back pay and benefits.

FBI v. B.E. FBI special agent denied promotion due to sexual discrimination. Trial by EEOC resulted in monetary damages and placement in Career Development Program.

Military Discharge Requests

Secretary of Army v. G. Army reservist released from Reserve commitment in order to avoid deployment to Iraq.

Secretary of Navy v. J. Marine CPL released from service so as not to deploy to Iraq.

Secretary of Army v. S. Army officer released from service to avoid deployment to Iraq.

Maritime Personal Injury Cases

R.R. v. M/V W.R. II Longshoreman injured by faulty cable on crane. We caused ship to be arrested by U.S. Marshals at 1am, Sunday morning, as it was attempting to flee into international waters to avoid liability. Personal injury case continues.