Article 78 UCMJ – Accessory After the Fact – Military Defense Lawyers
UCMJ Military Defense Guide by Gonzalez & Waddington
Article 78 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice criminalizes being an accessory after the fact—helping, assisting, sheltering, advising, or otherwise supporting someone who has already committed a UCMJ offense, with the knowledge that the individual committed the crime, and with the intent to help them escape justice.
This is one of the most misunderstood—and most overcharged—articles in the military justice system. Many service members find themselves accused of Article 78 even when they had no intent to help anyone avoid punishment. Natural human reactions such as comforting a friend, offering a ride, deleting personal messages, or staying silent out of fear may be interpreted as criminal “assistance.”
Florida bases—including NAS Jacksonville, Mayport, Pensacola, Whiting Field, Eglin, Hurlburt Field, Tyndall, Patrick SFB, MacDill, NSA Panama City, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard Sectors—see a disproportionate number of accessory-after-the-fact charges due to group living environments, nightlife incidents, barracks drama, multi-person altercations, domestic disputes, and the chaotic nature of joint-service social life in Florida.
Gonzalez & Waddington is internationally recognized for defending complex multi-party UCMJ cases. We dismantle Article 78 allegations by showing lack of intent, misunderstanding, panic, fear, emotional responses, or innocent actions misinterpreted as criminal assistance.
What Article 78 Criminalizes
A person violates Article 78 if they:
- Know that another person has committed an offense under the UCMJ
- Assist, shelter, protect, advise, or help that person
- Do so with the intent to hinder or prevent the apprehension, trial, or punishment of the offender
Important: Help provided before the offense is Article 82 (solicitation) or Article 81 (conspiracy). Article 78 applies only to help given after the crime occurred.
Examples of “Accessory After the Fact” Under Article 78
Prosecutors may claim someone is an accessory after the fact if they:
- Help someone flee an incident
- Allow someone to sleep in their room after a crime
- Delete text messages or photos
- Tell someone to “keep quiet”
- Clean up evidence (often misunderstood)
- Provide transportation away from the scene
- Lend money after a crime
- Hide property
- Lie about someone’s location
- Discourage a witness from reporting
Many of these actions are NOT criminal unless the accused acted with the specific intent to help the offender avoid justice.
Elements of Article 78
To convict someone under Article 78, prosecutors must prove:
1. Someone Other Than the Accused Committed an Offense
You cannot be an accessory after the fact to your own crime.
2. The Accused Knew the Offense Was Committed
Knowledge is essential. Suspicion, rumor, or uncertainty is not enough.
3. The Accused Assisted the Offender
This can include sheltering, advising, encouraging, or helping someone escape.
4. The Accused Intended to Help the Offender Avoid Justice
This is the most critical element. Without intent to obstruct justice, there is no violation.
What Article 78 Does NOT Criminalize
Many people falsely believe any contact with an accused person is illegal. That is wrong. Article 78 does NOT punish:
- Comforting a distraught friend
- Hanging out with someone accused of an offense
- Listening to someone talk about their situation
- Remaining silent out of fear or confusion
- Normal roommate or friendship interactions
- Deleting unrelated or private messages
- Panicked reactions during stressful events
- Privacy-motivated device cleanup
These actions only become criminal if prosecutors can show clear, provable intent.
Maximum Punishments Under Article 78
Article 78 is serious because the penalty is based on the severity of the underlying offense:
- If the principal offense carries life imprisonment, accessory after the fact may carry up to 15 years
- If the principal offense carries 10 years, accessory after the fact may carry up to 5 years
- Usually accompanied by:
- Dishonorable discharge
- Total forfeitures
- Reduction to E-1
The sentencing exposure is enormous—especially in cases involving sexual assault, domestic violence, robbery, or violent crimes.
Why Article 78 Allegations Are Common in Florida
Florida’s unique military environment creates numerous opportunities for misinterpretation:
- Nightlife fights in Jacksonville Beach, Miami, Tampa, and Pensacola
- Roommate and barracks drama involving multiple people
- Group drinking outings where stories change
- Misunderstandings involving civilians unfamiliar with the UCMJ
- Domestic arguments leading to exaggerated accusations
- Multiple witnesses giving conflicting statements
- Friends attempting to “calm things down” mistaken as obstruction
Commands often charge Article 78 simply because someone did not immediately call law enforcement—or because they spoke emotionally during a crisis.
Common Real-World Article 78 Scenarios
1. Helping a Drunk Friend After a Fight
Bringing someone home or to their barracks after a fight can be labeled “assisting the offender.”
2. Reconciliation Messages in Sexual Assault Cases
Texts like “please don’t report this” are often misinterpreted as criminal rather than emotional.
3. Trying to Avoid Command Drama
Members may beg friends not to “say anything” out of fear—not criminal intent.
4. Helping Someone Remove Their Property
Assisting a roommate in moving belongings may be viewed as hiding evidence.
5. Barracks Clean-Up After a Fight
Cleaning a mess can be misinterpreted as covering up a crime.
6. Telling a Friend to “Lay Low”
Often meant to avoid drama—but interpreted as aiding avoidance.
7. Deleting Messages Before an Investigation Is Known
Privacy-motivated cleaning can be twisted into “destroying evidence.”
8. Offering a Ride to Someone After an Incident
Florida nightlife makes this extremely common—and often misinterpreted.
9. Accusations Driven by Jealousy or Revenge
Ex-partners frequently weaponize Article 78 allegations.
10. Confusion About Mandatory Reporting
Failing to report something does NOT automatically make someone an accessory.
How Article 78 Investigations Work
Agencies involved include:
- NCIS
- OSI
- CID
- CGIS
- Local Florida law enforcement
Typical Investigative Failures
- Assuming guilt based on presence
- Confusing emotional communication with intent
- Evaluating text messages without context
- Failure to understand mental/emotional distress
- Taking accuser statements at face value
- Misinterpreting normal roommate or friendship behavior
- Overcharging cases due to command climate pressure
Most Article 78 cases collapse once the accused’s true intent is revealed.
Defense Strategies for Article 78 Cases
1. Attack the Intent Element (The #1 Defense)
No intent = no crime. We prove that actions were innocent, confused, panicked, or emotional—not criminal.
2. Demonstrate Lack of Knowledge
If the accused did not know an offense occurred, they cannot be convicted.
3. Expose Witness Bias
- Jealousy
- Revenge
- Breakups
- Roommate tensions
4. Use Digital Forensics
Messages taken out of context often collapse under complete review.
5. Florida-Specific Defense Approaches
- Nightlife confusion and intoxication
- Tourist involvement causing misidentification
- Barracks crowding leading to exaggerated claims
6. Show the Accused Was Not Helping the Offender Evade Justice
Helping someone calm down, sober up, or get medical attention is not a crime.
7. Present Character and Reputation Evidence
A strong record undermines claims of criminal participation.
Pro Tips for Anyone Accused of Article 78
- Do NOT talk to investigators under any circumstances.
- Do NOT delete anything from now on.
- Do NOT contact the alleged principal offender.
- Preserve all digital evidence.
- Document your timeline of events.
- Identify neutral witnesses who saw what actually happened.
- Avoid social media completely.
- Hire a civilian defense lawyer with experience in multi-party cases.
Related UCMJ Articles
- Article 77 – Principals
- Article 81 – Conspiracy
- Article 80 – Attempt
- Article 131a – Subornation of Perjury
- Article 131b – Obstruction of Justice
Article 78 UCMJ – Frequently Asked Questions
Can I be convicted for simply being with someone who committed a crime?
No. Presence alone is not a crime. The government must prove you intentionally helped someone avoid justice—an extremely high burden. This is one of our strongest defenses.
Can deleting text messages be obstruction or accessory after the fact?
Not automatically. Deleting texts out of embarrassment, privacy, or habit is not criminal unless prosecutors prove you intended to destroy evidence of a known investigation.
What if I had no idea a crime occurred?
Then you cannot be an accessory. Knowledge is required. Many Article 78 cases collapse because the accused had incomplete or inaccurate information.
Can consoling or comforting a friend be considered helping them avoid justice?
Absolutely not. Emotional support is NOT a crime. Prosecutors often misinterpret normal human behavior. We expose these flaws in court.
Why hire Gonzalez & Waddington?
We are global leaders in defending multi-party UCMJ cases. Our firm uses forensic analysis, cross-examination mastery, and strategic narrative building to dismantle weak Article 78 allegations.
Final Takeaways
Article 78 “Accessory After the Fact” is one of the most overused and misunderstood charges in military law. Many service members are accused based on panic, emotional reaction, confusion, or innocent behavior—not criminal assistance. With the right legal strategy, these cases are highly defensible and often collapse entirely.
Your silence protects you.
Your lawyer shields you.
Your strategy determines your future.