Article 131a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes subornation of perjury—that is, causing, persuading, pressuring, encouraging, or inducing another person to lie under oath. This is a serious felony under the UCMJ and is closely related to perjury (Article 131), obstruction of justice (Article 131b), and witness tampering (Article 134-type offenses).
Because subornation of perjury is often emotionally charged and highly subjective, many service members are wrongfully accused after heated disputes, breakups, command investigations, or criminal cases where witnesses change their stories or misunderstand legal instructions. Commands frequently assume “pressure” or “coaching” whenever a witness revises testimony, speaks with the accused, or expresses doubt about their original statement.
Florida’s military installations—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill AFB, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard units—see elevated 131a allegations due to domestic disputes, command climate issues, alcohol-related cases, and volatile relationship dynamics where witnesses frequently change stories or feel intimidated by investigators—not the accused.
Gonzalez & Waddington defends service members accused of witness tampering, subornation, perjury, and obstruction. We expose investigator intimidation, command pressure, unreliable witnesses, missing context, and allegations driven by emotion rather than fact.
A service member commits subornation of perjury if they:
This includes attempts to influence testimony during:
In many cases, the allegation arises from a misunderstanding of what the accused said—not intentional wrongdoing.
Often, the accused had no intent to cause perjury and the claim is based on vague or exaggerated interpretations.
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
The witness must have actually lied under oath. If there was no perjury, 131a usually fails.
There must be clear evidence the accused persuaded or pressured the witness.
Misunderstandings, miscommunication, or emotional outbursts are not enough.
This is the most difficult element for the government to prove.
The following do NOT automatically constitute subornation of perjury:
Article 131a requires intentional wrongdoing—not accidental influence or emotional conversations.
Cross-examination frequently destroys the government’s story.
Article 131a incidents often arise from Florida-specific conditions:
These dynamics often lead to exaggerated or false 131a accusations.
Investigators automatically blame the accused—even when recantation is voluntary.
CID/NCIS assumes “pressure” without evidence.
Statements like “don’t tell them everything” misinterpreted as subornation.
Accuser weaponizes Article 131a to avoid their own misconduct exposure.
“Get a lawyer” or “be careful what you say” twisted into coercion allegations.
Leadership pressures investigators to escalate minor conversations into criminal allegations.
Expect involvement from:
Many accused individuals were emotional—not attempting to influence testimony.
We show when CID/NCIS coerced or confused the witness—not the accused.
Full message threads often prove the accused said nothing improper.
Accusers often exaggerate to avoid responsibility or to gain advantage.
We show that the witness changed their story by choice—not coercion.
Even administrative findings of witness tampering can end a career when not properly defended.
➤ Protect Your Freedom, Rank & Future – Contact Gonzalez & Waddington
Yes. The prosecution must show that perjury actually occurred. If the witness did not lie under oath, the charge is extremely difficult for the government to sustain. We often defeat 131a cases on this element alone.
Not usually. Emotional venting, begging, or arguing is not the same as intentionally persuading someone to lie under oath. Prosecutors often misinterpret heated private conversations as “coercion.” We expose that weakness instantly.
This is extremely common. CID, NCIS, OSI, and CGIS often push witnesses to reinterpret conversations in a way that supports charges. We aggressively challenge these tactics and use expert cross-examination to expose improper investigator influence.
No. Encouraging someone to invoke their rights is lawful and protected. It becomes subornation only if you tell them to lie. Distinguishing these is critical—and investigators often get it wrong.
Because Article 131a cases are complex, highly emotional, and often based on distorted versions of conversations. Our firm specializes in digital-forensic analysis, medical and psychological assessment, cross-examination, and dismantling witness credibility. With decades of trial experience and a reputation for dominating UCMJ litigation, Gonzalez & Waddington is the defense team you want when your freedom and future are on the line.
