Several military offenses turn on whether a service member treated a superior or an official with contempt or disrespect. Article 88 reaches contemptuous words by officers against named civilian leaders, Article 89 addresses disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and Article 91 covers contempt or disrespect toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer. The trouble for the defense, and the opportunity, is that contempt is an inherently subjective idea. What strikes one listener as scorn may strike another as blunt honesty or frustration. Defense counsel build their strategy around that ambiguity.
Why Contempt Is a Vulnerable Element
Contempt and disrespect are not measured by a precise yardstick. The governing materials describe contemptuous words as scornful, disdainful, or derisive, and disrespect as behavior that shows marked disdain, insolence, or rudeness. These are conclusions about tone, attitude, and meaning rather than about objectively verifiable facts. Because the element depends so heavily on interpretation, the defense can attack it without disputing that the words were spoken at all. The central question becomes not what was said but what it meant, and meaning is where reasonable people, including panel members, can disagree.
Attacking the Surrounding Circumstances
The same words can be contemptuous or innocuous depending on context, and the governing standard expressly allows words to be contemptuous either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances. Defense counsel exploit that by reconstructing the full situation: the setting, the tone of voice, the relationship between the parties, what was said immediately before and after, and whether the exchange was heated, joking, or part of an ordinary professional disagreement. By showing that the circumstances do not establish scorn, counsel can argue that the prosecution has proven only that the member spoke, not that the speech crossed the line into contempt. Witnesses who heard the exchange and interpreted it innocently are often central to this approach.
Distinguishing Criticism from Contempt
A recurring theme is the line between criticism and contempt. Disagreement, frustration, or pointed objection is not the same as scorn for the person or the office. For Article 88 in particular, adverse comment in the course of legitimate discussion, even when emphatically expressed, is treated differently from contemptuous abuse. Defense counsel press the distinction by characterizing the statement as criticism of a decision, a policy, or a situation rather than derision aimed at the individual, and by emphasizing temperate or analytical language. The goal is to move the conduct out of the category the article punishes and into the category of expression that the article does not reach.
Challenging Intent and Knowledge
Disrespect offenses generally require that the conduct be directed at someone the accused knew to be a superior or an officer entitled to the protection of the article, and Article 89 in particular is understood to require intentional disrespect rather than an accident or a misunderstanding. Defense counsel can challenge whether the accused intended any disrespect, whether the accused even knew the status of the person involved, or whether the words were directed at that person at all. A statement made in private, out of the target’s presence, or without awareness of who was listening may fall outside the offense, and counsel scrutinize whether the prosecution can prove the required state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Execution-of-Office Requirement
For offenses under Article 91, the disrespect or contempt must be directed at the warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer while that person is in the execution of office. Defense counsel examine whether the victim was actually performing official duties at the moment of the exchange, since words exchanged during an off-duty, personal, or social interaction may not satisfy this element even if they were unflattering. Establishing that the encounter fell outside the execution of office can defeat the charge regardless of how the words are characterized.
Vagueness and Notice Arguments
Because contempt is so subjective, the defense sometimes raises the concern that the standard fails to give fair notice of what is prohibited. Courts have generally rejected the broad argument that these articles are unconstitutionally vague, recognizing that service members are expected to understand the professional norms the articles enforce. As a result, a sweeping vagueness challenge rarely succeeds on its own. Defense counsel typically use the vagueness concern more surgically, arguing that the particular words at issue are so far from any clear standard of scorn that no reasonable member could have known they would be treated as contemptuous, which reframes the abstract objection as an as-applied argument tied to the specific facts.
Using the Subjectivity at Findings and Sentencing
The subjective nature of contempt also shapes argument to the panel. Counsel remind members that the prosecution must prove scorn beyond a reasonable doubt and that an honest, even if uncharitable, alternative reading of the words is enough to create that doubt. Where conviction is likely, the same ambiguity becomes mitigation: counsel emphasize that the conduct sat near a blurry line, that it caused no real disruption, and that it reflected a momentary lapse rather than genuine defiance of authority. This positions the offense as minor in degree even if technically established.
Conclusion
Defense counsel challenge the subjective nature of contempt by refusing to treat the spoken words as the end of the inquiry and instead contesting their meaning. They reconstruct the circumstances, distinguish criticism from scorn, attack intent and knowledge, test the execution-of-office requirement under Article 91, and use the inherent ambiguity to create reasonable doubt and to mitigate. Because contempt is a judgment about attitude rather than a fixed fact, the defense’s strongest tool is to show that the prosecution’s interpretation is only one of several reasonable readings, and that the law requires more than a plausible inference of disrespect to sustain a conviction.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.