Military Lawyers Crisp and Associates

Military Lawyers Crisp and Associates is a veteran-owned and operated worldwide military criminal defense firm that provides aggressive legal representation for service members across all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces. The firm defends Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen facing investigations, Article 15 actions, or court-martial proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Crisp and Associates Military Law represents clients nationwide and overseas, traveling to any military installation where defense is needed. The firm’s attorneys are experienced former JAG officers, veterans, and law enforcement professionals who understand both the legal and cultural complexities of military justice.

Their practice areas include:

  • Court-Martial Defense – General, Special, and Summary Court-Martials
  • Sexual Assault and Article 120 Cases
  • Article 15 and Non-Judicial Punishment Defense
  • Violent Crimes and Murder (Article 118)
  • Drug Offenses (Article 112a)
  • Security Clearance and QMP Appeals
  • Record Corrections and Administrative Actions

Crisp and Associates is recognized for its strategic, trial-focused approach. The team refuses to simply “plea out” cases—instead, they fight for the strongest possible outcome through independent investigation, tactical motion practice, and courtroom advocacy.

Founded by Attorney Jonathan W. Crisp, the firm includes lawyers with experience in both military prosecution and defense, giving them deep insight into how the government builds its cases. The attorneys are admitted to practice before multiple federal and military courts, including the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the United States Supreme Court.

With a record of high-profile defenses and a commitment to protecting those who serve, Crisp and Associates Military Law delivers trusted, professional legal representation for service members whose careers, reputations, and freedom are on the line.…

Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan

Military Attorney Joseph L. Jordan is an accomplished and experienced lawyer who focuses exclusively on defending service members facing charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Based in Fort Cavazos (formerly Fort Hood), Texas, he represents Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and Guardians stationed across the United States and around the world.

A former Army JAG officer, Joseph Jordan brings firsthand experience from every level of the military justice system—having served as an enlisted Soldier, combat arms officer, and military prosecutor. This background gives him a rare and comprehensive understanding of how the system operates from the inside. Since founding his firm, Joseph L. Jordan, Attorney at Law, in 2011, he has represented over 650 clients and tried more than 190 cases to verdict.

His practice is dedicated to military criminal defense, including cases involving sexual assault (Article 120), drug offenses (Article 112a), assault, AWOL, manslaughter, and murder (Articles 118 and 119). In addition to court-martial trials, he handles Article 15 actions, administrative separation boards, and boards of inquiry. Jordan’s approach emphasizes early, aggressive defense strategies designed to protect careers, reputations, and futures.

Joining the firm in 2025, Attorney Nicholas C. DauSchmidt serves as Of Counsel and is based in Vicenza, Italy. A former JAG officer with over twelve years of experience, he has served as a defense counsel, prosecutor, and special victims counsel. His addition expands the firm’s global reach, providing representation for U.S. service members stationed in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

Together, the firm offers comprehensive legal defense for military personnel worldwide, combining deep knowledge of military law, operational experience, and independence from command influence. Their mission is straightforward: to provide professional, trial-tested defense for service members whose careers and freedom are on the line.…

United States Military Law vs Canada Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Canada, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional framework and civil-military balance, so similar terminology can mask different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where public figures vary, approximate ranges are used. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and the interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited U.S. Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside immediate command chains while commanders retain responsibilities for good order and discipline.

Canada Military Law

Canada’s system is created by the National Defence Act (NDA) and the Code of Service Discipline (CSD). Persons subject to the CSD may be tried by Summary Hearings for disciplinary infractions or by courts-martial for service offenses. Courts-martial sit in two formats: the Standing Court Martial for single-judge trials and the General Court Martial for judge and panel cases. Appeals go to the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada (CMAC), with further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on leave. Prosecution is conducted by the independent Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) within the Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG), while defense services are provided by the Director of Defence Counsel Services (DDCS). Investigations are led by the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service (CFNIS) within the military police, with referral protocols to civilian authorities for defined categories of …

United States Military Law vs Brazil Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Brazil, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional framework and civil-military balance, so similar terminology can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary, approximate ranges are provided. The goal is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and its interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a concluding sources section.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums include summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appeals proceed through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited review by the Supreme Court. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b), presumption of innocence, and access to defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside local command chains, recalibrating the balance between prosecutorial independence and commanders’ responsibility for discipline.

Brazil Military Law

Brazil’s framework is grounded in the Constitution of 1988, which preserves a specialized military justice system. Substantive offenses are codified in the Código Penal Militar (Military Penal Code), and procedure is governed by the Código de Processo Penal Militar (Military Code of Criminal Procedure). The judiciary consists of Auditorias Militares (military trial courts) at the first instance, staffed by both civilian judges (juízes-auditores) and military officers, with appeals to the Superior Military Court (Superior Tribunal Militar – STM), the highest authority in the military justice system. Certain cases may also reach the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) on constitutional grounds. Prosecution is carried out by the Ministério Público Militar (Military Public Prosecutor’s Office), which is structurally independent and part of the national Ministério Público. Ordinary crimes committed by service members outside a …

United States Military Law vs Egypt Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Egypt, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, defendants’ rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar terminology can mask different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where public figures vary, approximate ranges are used. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and the interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited U.S. Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside local command chains, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.

Egypt Military Law

Egypt’s framework is established by the Military Justice Law (often referenced as the Military Judiciary/Justice Law) and related executive regulations. Criminal cases involving persons subject to military law are tried in military courts of first instance, with appeals to the Supreme Military Court of Appeals under procedures defined by statute. Prosecution is conducted by the Military Prosecution Authority, which supervises investigations and files indictments before military courts. The military judiciary’s organization provides specialized panels by subject matter and level, and allocates jurisdiction based on the offense and status of the accused. Ordinary crimes by service members without a military character may proceed in civilian courts under the Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure subject to statutory allocation rules, while defined categories of offenses may be designated for military jurisdiction by law. …

United States Military Law vs Ukraine Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Ukraine, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, defendants’ rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar terminology can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary across public releases, approximate ranges are used. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and the interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited U.S. Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.

Ukraine Military Law

Ukraine’s framework is anchored in the Constitution of Ukraine, the Criminal Code of Ukraine, and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, together with defense statutes and disciplinary regulations. Military courts were abolished in the late 2000s, so criminal offenses by service members are adjudicated in the ordinary courts. Prosecutorial functions in military cases are handled by the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office in the Military and Defense Sphere within the Office of the Prosecutor General, a body that supervises pretrial investigations and brings indictments in offenses committed by persons subject to military service. Investigations of crimes by officials, including many service-related offenses, are carried out by the State Bureau of Investigations (SBI), with internal security units and other investigative bodies competent in defined categories. Appellate review …

United States Military Law vs Russia Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Russia, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar terminology can mask different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary across public releases, approximate ranges are used. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and the interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section for independent verification.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited U.S. Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside local command chains, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.

Russia Military Law

Russia’s military justice is embedded in the national judiciary. Substantive offenses derive from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, while procedure follows the Criminal Procedure Code, supplemented by defense regulations and the Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces. Adjudication of crimes by persons subject to military jurisdiction is handled by the military courts, which form part of the unified court system under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. At first instance, garrison military courts hear cases; appeals go to district (naval) military courts, with cassation and supervisory review available in designated cassation courts and the Supreme Court. Prosecution is carried out by the military prosecutor’s offices within the Office of the Prosecutor General, and preliminary investigation in many categories of …

United States Military Law vs Vietnam Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Vietnam, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional design and civil-military balance, so similar labels can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary, approximate ranges are provided. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, appellate review, and the interface with civilian courts. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section for verification.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.

Vietnam Military Law

Vietnam’s framework embeds military justice within the national courts and procuracy. Substantive criminal norms derive from the Penal Code and service regulations, while procedure follows the Criminal Procedure Code with adaptations for persons subject to military law. Adjudication is conducted by the People’s Military Courts, which are specialized courts established within the national judiciary and organized by zones and service structures. Prosecution is handled by the People’s Military Procuracy, paralleling the civilian procuracy and exercising investigation supervision and charging authority in military cases. Appeals progress within the military court hierarchy, with legal supervision and unification of jurisprudence provided by the Supreme People’s Court; procuratorial oversight is exercised by the Supreme People’s Procuracy. Disciplinary and administrative measures are governed by defense regulations and directives issued under the Ministry of …

United States Military Law vs South Korea Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and South Korea, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar labels can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary, approximate ranges are provided. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, and appellate review. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section for independent verification.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.

South Korea Military Law

South Korea’s framework is set by the Military Court Act and the Military Criminal Act, applied alongside the Criminal Procedure Act where specified. First-instance trials are conducted in military courts established within major commands. Prosecution is handled by the Military Prosecutors’ Office under the Ministry of National Defense, with investigative authority and charging functions defined by statute and regulations. Appellate routes were significantly reformed in recent years to enhance civilian oversight. Appeals from military courts now proceed to the civilian appellate courts, with ultimate review by the Supreme Court of Korea on points of law, while the former centralized military appellate court was curtailed in peacetime. Certain serious offenses, including defined categories of sexual violence and deaths in service, are channeled to the ordinary courts to promote transparency. Disciplinary measures remain …

United States Military Law vs Japan Military Law

Introduction

This article compares the military justice systems of the United States and Japan, focusing on legal foundations, court structures, prosecutorial arrangements, rights, and oversight. Military law reflects each country’s constitutional architecture and civil-military balance, so similar labels can conceal different allocations of authority and review. All statements are anchored to October 2025 and emphasize verified institutions and statutes. Where official figures vary across publications, approximate ranges are provided. The aim is descriptive clarity rather than evaluation, explaining how each system organizes investigation, charging, adjudication, and appellate review. The discussion proceeds from country descriptions to a structured comparison, followed by concise force overviews, cautious estimates of legal personnel where possible, and a closing sources section for independent verification.

United States Military Law

The United States system is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and implemented through the Manual for Courts-Martial. Jurisdiction covers active-duty personnel worldwide and certain reserve and retired categories. Trial forums comprise summary courts-martial for minor offenses, special courts-martial for intermediate matters, and general courts-martial for the most serious crimes. Appellate review proceeds through the service Courts of Criminal Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), with limited Supreme Court review. Rights include advisement under Article 31(b) and access to military or civilian defense counsel. Since late 2023, specified serious offenses are investigated and charged by independent Offices of Special Trial Counsel (OSTC), which make disposition decisions outside the immediate command chain, recalibrating the balance between command responsibility and prosecutorial independence while preserving commanders’ roles in good order and discipline.

Japan Military Law

Japan’s framework is anchored in the Constitution of Japan, which provides that all judicial power is vested in the courts and prohibits extraordinary tribunals. As a result, Japan maintains no separate standing military criminal courts. Criminal offenses by members of the Japan Self-Defense Forces are adjudicated in the ordinary courts under the national Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure. Service-specific obligations and disciplinary mechanisms are established by the Self-Defense Forces Law and related regulations, which provide administrative measures, nonjudicial sanctions, and internal controls overseen by the Ministry of Defense. Prosecution of crimes proceeds through the civilian prosecution service, and appeals follow the ordinary hierarchy up to the Supreme Court of Japan. Where forces operate overseas, competence is allocated by domestic law and any applicable treaties or status of …