Read the Judge's Ruling: Dismissed with Prejudice; JAG Appeals

In a pivotal ruling dated December 30, 2024, the military judge presiding over Captain Juan Gale's court-martial ordered the dismissal of all charges with prejudice, citing improper withdrawal and re-referral of charges as the basis. The decision follows a lengthy legal process marred by allegations of unlawful command influence (UCI) and prejudicial actions by the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMCA) (Lt Gen Michael G Koscheski).

As promised, Justice 4 Juan Gale is publishing the Judge’s official ruling, in full (download at the bottom of the page). This document details the last four years of legal maneuvers by JAG and Tinker Command, from a Judge’s perspective. Is this judge only 10% correct too, Coyle?

"This is surprising and highly concerning that, still, JAG is not willing to accept a Judge's ruling. First, they wrongfully dismiss and re-refer charges, and now, they are trying to get around another Judge's decision," said a Gale family member. "The judge's ruling validated every point we have made."

As we stated previously, this was a “nice” ruling on the judge’s part, because it freed Gale from this legal witch hunt, while doing Command a favor and not citing them for UCI – allowing them all to save face.

Now, revealed by the Gale family, while many of these Commanders are up promotions, JAG has foolishly decided to pursue an appeal. Is this proof that what J4JG has said this entire time, is true - that JAG and Command have made this personal and are relentless in their pursuit against Gale, despite un-credible witnesses, dismissed prosecutors, recused judges and proven and apparent UCI by Tinker command.

We encourage ALL of the public to read the Judge’s ruling in full and judge for yourselves. These are the Commanders that many of our sons and daughters report to. Now spread across bases throughout the world – at Langley (Lt Gen Michael G Koscheski), Hickam (Col Richard Higashi), Camp Humpherys (Col Keven P Coyle), Lackland (Maj Tiny Bowman and Capt Melissa B Lopes) and Tinker (Col Kenneth J Voigt Jr, Lt Col William McCormick and Col Janet Eberle), these high-ranking military leaders continue to tarnish the U.S. military’s reputation, all while still being up for promotion and leading our sons and daughters.

Let’s recap, an accusation of being AWOL, (4) offers of Article 15, (2) offers of LOR, (4) judges, (9) prosecutors, (2) Generals, (3) Colonels, (4) squadron commanders, (2) Staff Judge Advocates, (1) judge recused, (1) prosecutor dismissed, nearly four years of legal battle, not one court-martial – and they are not letting up.

Key Findings from the Judge's Ruling

The judge determined that the withdrawal and subsequent re-referral of charges by the GCMCA (Lt Gen Michael G Koscheski) violated procedural fairness and created the appearance of interference with the judicial process. Specifically:

• The court found that the original withdrawal of charges in 2023 was prompted by improper motivations, including an intent—or appearance thereof—to undermine the impartiality of the court-martial.

• The re-referral of identical charges after the original case had been dismissed with prejudice was deemed prejudicial to Captain Gale, depriving him of a favorable trial ruling.

• The judge concluded that these actions placed an "intolerable strain on public perception of the military justice system" and unfairly delayed Gale's right to a speedy trial, with over 18 months passing since his original court date.

• The ruling emphasized that the GCMCA’s (Lt Gen Michael G Koscheski) actions, even if not intentionally malicious, had the effect of interfering with judicial proceedings by withdrawing charges after an unfavorable ruling for the prosecution.

  
  

The judge unequivocally stated that the only appropriate remedy for these violations was a dismissal with prejudice, ensuring that the charges could not be brought again.

The judge’s decision highlighted the broader implications of the case, underscoring the need for integrity in the military justice system. JAG’s appeal signals that they are vindictively trying to extend this case.

Next Steps

As JAG pursues an appeal, the Justice 4 Juan Gale movement will continue to advocate for transparency and accountability. Updates will follow as the case progresses through higher courts. This ruling and its aftermath highlight critical questions about fairness, leadership accountability, and the preservation of trust in the military judicial process.

Click the link below to read judge's ruling.

Captain Juan Gale U.S v Gale Judge Dismissal with Prejudice Ruling.pdf

Download PDF • 453KB