Unlawful command influence is the UCMJ’s most serious structural concern, and the military justice system treats it as such. When a commander uses the authority of rank or position to affect the outcome of a military justice proceeding, whether by pressuring witnesses, signaling desired outcomes to panel members, or interfering with the charging or referral process, the integrity of the entire proceeding is called into question. Courts have described UCI as the mortal enemy of military justice.
Proving UCI in a motion requires more than a general allegation. The accused must present evidence that influence was exerted, that it came from a person in a position of command authority, and that it had or was likely to have an effect on the proceedings. When a court finds that UCI occurred, the remedies range from dismissal of charges to specific curative instructions, depending on the severity and the degree to which the taint can be addressed. Preserving UCI claims through the full appellate process requires careful documentation from the earliest stages.
The Definition of Unlawful Command Influence Under Military Law
Unlawful command influence is the use of military authority to interfere with the fair administration of military justice. It can take the form of direct interference, where a commander explicitly directs a particular outcome in a specific case, or apparent command influence, where the commander’s actions or statements create the appearance of pressure even without explicit direction. Courts have held that apparent command influence is as harmful as actual influence, because the appearance of coercion undermines public confidence in the fairness of the military justice system even if no actual coercion occurred.
The concept extends beyond direct tampering with cases. Commanders who make public statements about the guilt of accused service members, who communicate expectations about how proceedings should come out, or who create an institutional climate in which participants in military justice proceedings feel pressure to reach particular outcomes have all potentially engaged in command influence. The breadth of the definition reflects the recognition that military institutional authority is pervasive and that subtle forms of pressure can be as distorting as overt interference.
Direct vs. Apparent Command Influence and Why Both Matter
Direct command influence occurs when a commander explicitly directs an outcome in a specific case: ordering a conviction, directing that charges be referred, or threatening consequences for those who reach verdicts the commander disfavors. Apparent command influence occurs when the commander’s conduct, though not explicitly coercive, creates the appearance of pressure that could affect how participants in the proceeding exercise their independent judgment.
Courts have held that apparent command influence is equally harmful to the integrity of the military justice system as direct influence, because the harm the doctrine addresses is the appearance of unfairness in military justice, not just its reality. An accused who is tried before a panel that perceived command pressure to convict has received an unfair proceeding regardless of whether that pressure was explicitly communicated. This expansive definition reflects the recognition that military institutional authority operates through channels that often do not require explicit direction to produce effects.
The Evidentiary Standard for Proving UCI in a Motion
The defense bears the initial burden of raising the issue of unlawful command influence through a motion that identifies the specific conduct alleged and explains why it constitutes command influence. The burden then shifts to the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the command influence did not actually occur or that it did not affect the fairness of the proceeding or the appearance of fairness. This shifting burden reflects how seriously military law treats the integrity of the military justice process.
The evidence required to support a UCI motion includes documentation of the specific statements or conduct at issue, evidence of the speaker’s relationship to the case and their authority over potential participants, and evidence of how the statements or conduct were communicated and received. Witness statements from people who heard the command’s statements, recordings or written records of the statements themselves, and documentation of the command’s role in the referral or adjudication process are all relevant.
Remedies Available When the Military Judge Finds UCI
When a military judge finds that unlawful command influence occurred, the range of remedies available spans from instructions to the panel about disregarding command influence to dismissal of the charges. The specific remedy chosen depends on the severity of the influence, the pervasiveness of its effect, and whether any less drastic remedy can adequately cure the harm to the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Dismissal is available as a remedy when the influence was so pervasive or so severe that no instruction or other measure can provide an adequate cure. Courts have granted dismissal in cases where senior commanders made repeated public statements about guilt, where command officials interfered with the defense’s access to witnesses, and where the influence infected the referral decision itself. Less severe influence may be addressed by severing the tainted participants from the proceedings or by providing curative instructions.
How UCI Claims Are Preserved for Appeal When the Judge Denies the Motion
When the military judge denies a UCI motion, the defense must preserve the issue for appellate review by ensuring that the record includes all of the evidence and argument that was presented in support of the motion. A denial that is made on the record, with specific findings by the judge, is reviewable by the appellate courts on the basis of those findings. A denial made without adequate factual findings may be subject to a more searching appellate review.
Defense counsel who lose a UCI motion at trial but believe the issue has appellate merit must ensure that the record is as complete as possible, that every piece of evidence supporting the UCI claim is in the record, and that the denial is properly preserved through timely and specific objection. The appellate case for UCI begins in the trial court record, and a well-preserved UCI claim that is reviewed de novo on appeal has a real chance of producing the dismissal that the trial court declined to order.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.