After a court-martial reaches findings and a sentence, the case enters the post-trial phase, which includes the convening authority’s review and the submission of clemency matters. Many accused want to know whether they may contact the victim during this stage, perhaps to apologize, to seek a statement of support, or to discuss the consequences of the conviction. The safe and accurate answer is that contact is heavily constrained and frequently prohibited outright, and that any contact carries serious legal risk. The restrictions come from several overlapping sources, and an accused should assume that direct contact is off limits unless counsel confirms otherwise.
The Sources of the Restrictions
There is no single rule that says an accused may never speak to a victim after trial. Instead, several distinct authorities combine to limit or bar contact during the post-trial and clemency stages.
The first source is any no-contact order already in place. Courts-martial and commands commonly impose no-contact orders, often early in a case, directing the accused to avoid the victim and witnesses. These orders frequently remain in effect through trial and beyond, and violating a lawful no-contact order is itself a separate offense, typically charged under Article 92 as a failure to obey a lawful order. An accused who contacts a victim in violation of such an order during the post-trial phase risks fresh charges on top of the existing conviction.
The second source is the law of obstruction and witness intimidation. Even without a standing no-contact order, reaching out to a victim in a way that could be seen as pressuring, influencing, or discouraging the victim, including efforts to shape a victim’s clemency submission, can expose the accused to charges such as obstruction of justice or, in some circumstances, intimidation offenses under the UCMJ. The post-trial clemency stage is exactly the kind of setting where a well-meaning contact can be characterized as an attempt to improperly influence the proceeding, because the victim has a statutory voice in clemency.
The third source is the victim’s own statutory rights, which shape how the process is conducted and signal why unsupervised contact is disfavored.
The Victim’s Rights During Clemency Under Article 6b
Article 6b of the UCMJ, codified at 10 U.S.C. 806b, establishes the rights of a victim of an offense within the military justice system. Among those rights are the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of proceedings, the reasonable right to confer with government counsel, the right to be treated with fairness and respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy, and the right to be reasonably heard at certain proceedings, including public proceedings of the service clemency and parole authority relating to the offense.
These rights have practical consequences for the post-trial phase. The victim is entitled to participate in the clemency process through the proper channels, and the victim is entitled to be free from intimidation and to have privacy respected. That structure assumes communication runs through counsel and the system, not through direct outreach from the convicted accused. An accused who tries to engage the victim directly during clemency is operating against the grain of the victim’s protected role.
How Clemency Submissions Actually Work
The clemency process is governed by the post-trial procedures of the Rules for Courts-Martial, including the provisions on submission of matters to the convening authority. The accused has a defined window after announcement of the sentence to submit clemency matters to the convening authority, with a limited extension available for good cause. The victim also has the opportunity to submit matters for the convening authority’s consideration, and when a victim does so, the accused is given a short additional period to submit a rebuttal to those matters.
The important point is that this exchange happens on paper, through counsel, and through the convening authority’s office. It is not a forum for the accused to negotiate directly with the victim. If the accused wishes to convey remorse or to present mitigating information, the proper vehicle is the accused’s own clemency submission prepared with defense counsel, not a private message to the victim. Likewise, if the defense believes the victim might voluntarily provide a favorable statement, the safe approach is to work through counsel, who can determine whether any contact is permissible and how to avoid the appearance of pressure.
Why Direct Contact Is So Risky
Several risks converge during this stage. A standing no-contact order may still bind the accused, so contact could be a punishable order violation. A contact could be characterized as obstruction or as an attempt to influence the victim’s clemency input. A contact could also harden the command’s and the convening authority’s view of the accused, undermining the very clemency the accused seeks. And because the victim has the right to be free from intimidation and to participate through the system, even a sincere and gentle outreach can be perceived as improper. The downside of unauthorized contact almost always outweighs any benefit.
The Correct Approach
The reliable course is straightforward. The accused should not contact the victim directly during the post-trial and clemency stages. Instead, the accused should route everything through defense counsel. Defense counsel can confirm whether any no-contact order remains in force, can prepare and submit clemency matters on the accused’s behalf, and can communicate with government counsel or the victim’s representative through appropriate channels if there is a legitimate, non-coercive reason to do so. If the accused wants the victim to know of the accused’s remorse, that sentiment is best expressed within the formal clemency submission rather than through private contact.
Bottom Line
During the post-trial clemency stages, restrictions on contacting an alleged victim are significant and stem from standing no-contact orders, the law of obstruction and witness influence, and the victim’s statutory rights under Article 6b, including the right to participate in clemency and to be free from intimidation. Clemency communications are designed to flow through counsel and the convening authority, not through direct contact between the accused and the victim. The prudent and legally safe rule is to make no direct contact and to handle everything through defense counsel.
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.