The U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y. (United States Military Academy)
An appeal deadline that Army prosecutors missed by 20 minutes ultimately led to the permanent dismissal of a case against a West Point colonel who had once been ready to plead guilty to charges that involved drinking alcohol with cadets and then interfering with the investigation.
The Army Court of Criminal Appeals, in an opinion released last month, upheld Military Judge Lt. Col. Carrie Ward’s decision in April to permanently dismiss charges against Col. William Wright at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. The case was noteworthy because the charges against Wright were brought to court-martial and dismissed three times in 10 months.
Between the second and third courts-martial, Army prosecutors had a three-day window to appeal the judge’s decision to dismiss the charges. They missed the deadline. Instead, prosecutors attempted to bring the case to court-martial for a third time, which the judge said they could not do. The Army Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the judge.
Wright, who was the director of the academy’s Geospatial Information Science Program, was charged with violating Army policy on trainer-trainee interactions, interfering with an adverse administrative proceeding and making a false official statement during an inquiry into the allegations.
The first case ended in October 2024 with a dismissal the day before Wright was prepared to enter a plea deal. The convening authority withdrew from a plea agreement and dismissed the charges. At West Point, the convening authority overseeing court-martial proceedings that are outside the purview of the Office of Special Trial Counsel is the superintendent, Lt. Gen. Steven Gilland.
In the second court-martial, the judge in January dismissed the charges because she concluded the Army’s withdrawal in the previous court-martial was based on three improper reasons: to avoid a ruling against a motion prosecutors filed; to avoid releasing adverse information about a witness relevant to the pending defense motions; and because Wright’s attorneys had filed a motion to dismiss.
Ward also ordered prosecutors “to perform in accordance with the original terms of the plea agreement” if they returned the case to court-martial.
This is when the Army had 72 hours to file an appeal on the judge’s decision and did so 20 minutes after the deadline, according to the appeal opinion. With no appeal, the judge’s ruling stood, so the Army in April sent the case to court-martial for a third time.
“Now, [the Army] attempts to reopen that closed window by bringing the same charges, in the same manner, against the same accused, inducing substantially the same ruling by the same military judge,” according to appeals court opinion.
The Army can’t resend a case to court-martial as a way to reset deadlines for court decisions it does not like, according to the opinion. It must meet appeal deadlines, which require attorneys to file an intent to appeal within 72 hours.
When Ward dismissed the case, she said, “[w]hether I was right or wrong, it really doesn’t matter anymore, because you didn’t challenge it. … [Wright] gets the benefit of the dismissal because the government opted not to file its appeal,” according to appeals court opinion.
Officials at West Point sent all questions about the case to the Army because of an ongoing government shutdown. The Army confirmed Wright is still in the service and assigned to the academy.
Wright had filed for retirement, which should have been July 31, according to his attorney Phil Cave. He now hopes an early decision will be made to continue his retirement and move on with his family to new endeavors, Cave said.
Robert Capovilla, co-founder of Capovilla and Williams, a military defense law firm, said he reviewed the appeals court’s opinion and applauded the judge’s position to hold the deadline.
“Deadlines for both the defense and the government matter,” he said. “As a result of the government’s mistake, in Wright’s third court-martial, the judge dismissed this case with prejudice. Under the law, that is the exact proper measure to take.”
The Army could appeal the ruling further to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It has 60 days to do so.
