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
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.
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.