What is the doctrine of Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges (UMC)?

The doctrine against unreasonable multiplication of charges focuses on preventing the prosecution in military courts-martial from preferring multiple charges stemming from the same action just to exaggerate the criminality of the accused’s actions. 

Multiplicity vs. Unreasonable Multiplication of Charges

Courts may apply the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges (UMC) to a case at court-martial. Military judges must ensure that prosecutors do not needlessly “pile on” charges against a military accused. See United States v. Foster, 40 M.J. 140, 144 n.4 (C.M.A. 1994). Multiplicity and UMC are founded on distinct legal principles. The prohibition against multiplicity complies with the constitutional and statutory restrictions against double jeopardy. The prohibition against UMC addresses features of military law that increase the potential for overreaching in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. After considering these factors, if the court finds the “piling on” of charges to be unreasonable, it will fashion an appropriate remedy on a case-by-case basis. See United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001).

Rule for Courts-Martial 906(b)(12)

The military judge may provide a remedy, as described in Rule for Courts-Martial. 906(b)(12), if they find there has been an unreasonable multiplication of charges as applied to findings or sentence.  Charges that arise from substantially the same transaction, while not legally multiplicious, may still be unreasonably multiplied as applied to findings. Id. When the military judge finds, in their discretion, that the offenses have been unreasonably multiplied, the appropriate remedy shall be dismissal of the lesser offenses or merger of the offenses into one specification. Id.

Quiroz Factors for UMC

In Quiroz, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces endorsed the factors when considering a claim of UMC: (1) Did the accused object at trial? (2) Is each charge and specification aimed at a distinctly separate act? (3) Does the number of charges misrepresent or exaggerate the accused’s criminality? (4) Is there any evidence of prosecutorial overreaching in drafting? (5) Does the number of charges and specifications unfairly increase the accused’s punitive exposure? See Quiroz at 338-339.

In United States v. Esposito, 57 M.J. 608 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002), the government charged an accused with making a false official statement and obstructing justice when he lied about the source of his fighting injuries and asked the fellow crewmember to do the same. The Court held there was UMC because “finding the Appellant guilty of both making a false official statement to his executive petty officer in violation of Article 107, UCMJ, and obstructing justice in violation of Article 134, UCMJ, for a single utterance constitutes an unreasonable multiplication of charges. Therefore, we will dismiss that portion of specification 16 that relates to the Appellant’s statement to his executive petty officer.” See United States v. Esposito, 57 M.J. 608, 611 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. 2002).

How can the Military Law Center Help Defend Against UMC?

The Military Law Center is comprised of former Marine Corps Judge Advocates with more than four decades of combined military justice experience.  For service members facing a court-martial and believe the prosecutor overcharged them in violation of the doctrine of unreasonable multiplication of charges, our law firm offers a free consultation.  Service members or their families should contact us at 760-536-9038.