Article 79 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is one of the most powerful—and least understood—articles in the entire military justice system. Under Article 79, a service member may be convicted of a lesser included offense (LIO) or an attempt to commit an offense, even if that lesser offense was never charged, explicitly named, or included in the charge sheet.
This means the government can charge a service member with a serious offense—such as sexual assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, or assault—yet the panel or judge may convict the service member of a different, lesser offense that was never mentioned during the investigation or referral of charges.
Florida service members face a high risk of Article 79 issues due to the frequency of sexual assault accusations, alcohol-related incidents, barracks conflicts, domestic disputes, and command pressure to “get a conviction” even when the evidence is weak. Commands often refer heavy charges in Pensacola, Jacksonville, Eglin, Hurlburt, Patrick, MacDill, NAS Key West, and Coast Guard Sectors—knowing that even if the primary charge fails, they can secure an LIO conviction under Article 79.
Gonzalez & Waddington is internationally recognized for dismantling weak sexual assault, assault, and property crime cases where LIOs and attempt charges are used as fallback strategies by prosecutors. We expose weaknesses in evidence, challenge sloppy command investigations, and prevent convictions based on technicalities or catch-all LIO theories.
Article 79 does not criminalize conduct itself. Instead, it authorizes the court to convict a service member of:
In practice, this means a service member can face conviction for a crime the government never charged—so long as the LIO fits within the legally defined framework of Article 79.
Below are examples of LIOs often used by prosecutors:
This is why Article 79 can be so dangerous—service members may prepare their defense for a serious charge, only to be surprised at trial when the government pushes a different, related offense as an LIO.
To convict someone of an LIO or attempt under Article 79, prosecutors must show:
Courts examine statutory elements, not allegations.
The government must prove the LIO beyond a reasonable doubt.
Constitutionally, the LIO must be foreseeable—but commands often stretch this rule.
It must be a subset of the charged offense.
The accused must have taken a substantial step toward the crime.
Article 79 is often used improperly in Florida cases involving:
Prosecutors sometimes rely on LIOs as “fallback” convictions because they know the main charge is weak.
We destroy these cases by exposing the legal flaws in their LIO theories.
Florida’s military landscape creates circumstances ripe for LIO and attempt charges:
These environments produce cases where prosecutors rely on LIOs after their primary allegations fall apart.
Prosecutors pivot to “abusive sexual contact” or “assault consummated by battery” when rape evidence is weak.
Main assault charge collapses → prosecution pushes LIO instead.
Robbery lacks evidence → government argues for larceny as an LIO.
Burglary not provable → prosecutors push “housebreaking” or trespass-like LIOs.
Prosecutors fall back on negligence-based LIOs.
When the government cannot prove the offense was completed, they claim it was “attempted.”
Commands under political pressure refer heavy charges, expecting an LIO conviction if they cannot prove rape.
Article 79 does not require its own investigation—it becomes relevant when prosecutors decide the evidence does not meet the charged offense and pivot to an LIO or attempt theory.
Agencies involved:
We aggressively attack these procedural violations.
We prove the LIO does NOT legally fit the charged offense under element analysis.
The defense must have a fair chance to confront the LIO.
Commands often misuse LIOs when their case collapses.
Attempts require substantial steps—not mere preparation.
If the main charge is weak, the LIO often suffers from the same weaknesses.
Especially in sexual assault and violent-offense cases.
Yes. Article 79 allows conviction of lesser included offenses and attempts—even if they were never listed on the charge sheet. We aggressively attack improper LIOs.
An LIO contains fewer elements than the charged offense. For example, abusive sexual contact is an LIO of sexual assault. The government often relies on LIOs when their main charge fails.
Yes, and prosecutors frequently misuse attempt charges to salvage cases. We destroy these charges by proving the accused never took a “substantial step.”
The defense must receive fair notice. We challenge improper LIO surprises and fight for dismissal when due process is violated.
We are world-class military trial lawyers with unmatched skill in defeating LIO-based and attempt-based prosecutions. Our courtroom strategy has dismantled hundreds of weak Article 79 cases worldwide.
Article 79 is a powerful and dangerous legal tool that enables prosecutors to secure convictions for lesser included offenses or attempts—even when the primary charge collapses. However, with expert legal strategy, deep knowledge of UCMJ element analysis, and aggressive trial advocacy, Article 79 cases can often be beaten entirely.
Your silence protects you. Your lawyer defends you. Your strategy determines your future.
