Your script, simplified:
- What exactly am I being accused of?
- That’s not true. I didn’t do it.
- I’m not going to talk to you, I want a lawyer.
If the military suspects you of committing a crime, eventually the investigators will ask you to talk. The conversation won’t be on your turf. It’ll be at their office, behind locked and guarded doors, in a tiny, windowless, clockless interrogation room. You’ll be directed where to sit. The scene and the method are scripted, staged, and calibrated for maximum psychological effect. It’s not a conversation, it’s psychological warfare. And it can last all day and night if you let it.
Update, April 2026: Three recent cases (two from 2026 and one from 2017 that keeps coming up) show what happens when service members do and don’t follow the steps described on this page. The cases also show how far investigators will push it, including the games they play with the rights advisement forms themselves before a single question is asked. See the case law update and the forms at the bottom of this post.
The Three Things You Can Say, and Then Stop
These three tips can help you get out of that situation quickly and without risk:
- Get whatever information you can about the accusation.
- Make your denial, on video if possible.
- Assert your rights immediately after making your denial.
We’ll address each of those steps first, and then at the end of this post we’ll give an illustration of how these steps might play out in an actual interrogation. For additional survival tips, see our Interrogation Survival Kit.
GET THEM TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION
The simplest way to end the interrogation quickly and before any damage is done is to tell them you’re not going to make a statement and you want to talk to a lawyer immediately. You won’t get any information about the allegations, but it works. If you choose to do that, don’t be meek about it. Be firm. Don’t ask them if you should talk to a lawyer. Just invoke your rights and get back to safety.
If you decide to try to get some information before invoking your rights, the first thing you need to ask once you’re sitting in the interrogation room is if the interview is being video recorded. You want to make sure everything you say and they say is captured.
Once you’ve established that, then you ask your questions. You do this before they try to make any small talk or get any biographical information. You make it the first thing to be covered.
At a minimum you should be able to get these answers if the investigators are playing it straight:
- Am I under investigation?
- What specific crimes or misconduct am I being suspected of committing?
- What specific article of the UCMJ are you investigating me for?
Bonus information you might be able to get:
- Who is making the accusation?
- When did this happen?
- Where did this happen?
Unless you subject yourself to an interrogation, which you aren’t going to do, you probably won’t be able to get the bonus information. But it can’t hurt to ask.
When you ask the initial questions, they’ll steer you away by saying something like, “We’ll get to that, but first we need to …”
Keep in mind that, as far you’re concerned, this is not a two-way street right now. Right now your perspective has to be that if they want to talk to you at all, it’s only fair for you to know what it’s about, specifically. Military investigators love being vague. It’s a trap. Insist that they tell you the specific allegation (who, what, where, when) and specific article of the UCMJ it falls under.
When you ask why they want to talk to you, they might not even tell you that much. They might ask, “Why do you think you’re here?” You don’t have to play along with that. If they try it, ask again. If they refuse to tell you why they want to talk to you, tell them you want to talk to a lawyer immediately. Get out, get to safety.
If they do tell you what you’re suspected of, they might tell you they just want to eliminate you as a suspect. That’s a lie. They’re allowed to lie to you.
When you ask why you’re there, what you’re accused of, etc., the investigators will try to put you off and steer the conversation back to where they can control it. They’re not interested in giving information. That’s ok. They owe you, you don’t owe them. Ask your questions, get what you can get, end the interrogation. Just don’t be a jerk about it. Always be classy and polite.
DENY, DENY, DENY
You don’t have to deny it, but we’re going to assume that’s what you want to do. As soon as you know what you’re being accused of, and have whatever bonus information you can get up front, make your denial. It can take just about any form, so long as it’s clear:
- That’s not true.
- I didn’t do that.
- I’m innocent.
- That’s not true, I didn’t do it, and I don’t care what evidence you think you have. I’m innocent.
If you want to say anything other than I want a lawyer, use this technique whether or not the interrogation is being recorded.
When you make your denial, be firm and be confident. Someday a panel or judge might see that video. For sure the prosecutor will see it, and the absence of a confession is always important to a prosecutor’s assessment of the strength of the case. And a denial is even better than an absence of a confession.
If all the investigators get from you is a denial, you might not be able to use the video at trial – they hate putting a denial in front of a judge or panel – but it’s better to have it recorded than not have it. Let your attorney figure out how to use it.
And then …
INVOKE YOUR RIGHTS
Once you’ve made your denial, tell them you’re not going to agree to be interviewed, you’re not going to make a statement of any kind, and you don’t consent to the search of any of your property or your residence. Again, be firm but polite.
When in doubt, invoke your rights. If at any time you don’t feel comfortable asking the questions we listed here, invoke your rights. The most important thing is to never waive your rights. Invoke them. It’s only a question of when you want to invoke them.
That’s true even if you have already waived your rights and agreed to be interrogated. If you waived your rights and things go sideways on you, invoke your rights before you say something you’ll regret for the rest of your life.
If you have anything helpful to say about the case, you can have your attorney say it for you. Nothing your attorney says can be used as evidence against you in a court-martial, and your attorney will make sure the information is presented, if at all, in the best possible way.
You don’t have to wait for the investigators to inform you of your rights in order to invoke your rights. Just do it. It can be as simple as saying
- I’m not going to talk to you. I want a lawyer.
That’s all it takes. The steps explained in this post are designed to get information that might help level the playing field, but they’re not necessary. If in doubt, invoke.
In an ideal scenario, here’s how the conversation might go if you’re controlling the flow of information:
- Is this interview being recorded right now?
- Why do you want to talk to me?
- What am I suspected of, specifically?
- What article of the UCMJ covers that?
- Who’s accusing me?
- When did it happen?
- Where did it happen?
- It’s not true. I didn’t do it. I’m innocent.
- I don’t consent to you searching my phone, computer, car, residence, or anything of mine. And I won’t take a polygraph.
- I’m not going to talk to you. I want to talk to a lawyer right now.
It’s probably never going to be quite that easy. Investigators aren’t stupid, and they’re trained to fend off your resistance and steer you away from your denials. Even if they figure out what you’re up to, they might give you some of the information anyway just to see if you’ll open up. Which you won’t.
Whether or not you can get the additional information, whether or not you decide to skip straight to asserting your rights, knowing the rules of engagement will help you survive, get home quickly, and keep your court-martial defense intact.
Case Law Update, April 2026
What Recent Cases Reveal About the Agents’ True Intentions
United States v. Scottgeorge (Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, February 2026) is the clearest illustration of what investigators will do when a service member tries to get information before waiving his rights. Scottgeorge showed up thinking the meeting was about a urinalysis. When agents told him it involved a sex crime and extortion, he wanted to know more before signing anything. The agents told him he’d find out what he was accused of after he waived. He waived, and then he confessed. The military judge suppressed the confession. The government appealed. The court upheld suppression; the waiver wasn’t “knowing and voluntary” because he didn’t know what he was waiving. That outcome was unusual. Most appellate courts tolerate this kind of manipulation. Scottgeorge got lucky. Most service members in that position don’t. See our full case study of Scottgeorge, what it means for your interrogation, and additional tips for taking control.
United States v. Campbell (Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, 2017) shows what happens when an agent spends several minutes before the rights card even comes out telling the suspect that the advisement is essentially a formality, a procedural nuisance, something we have to get through, an umbrella catch-all that doesn’t really mean what it sounds like. By the time the form arrived, Campbell had already been conditioned to treat it as paperwork rather than a UCMJ and constitutional protection. Campbell waived his rights. He confessed. He appealed. The appeal was denied because Campbell was a 24-year-old Academy graduate who the court concluded already knew what his rights were and why he was there. The agents got away with it. They usually do. Later in the same interview, agents asked Campbell to take a polygraph. He said he wanted to talk to a lawyer first, but he meant only before the polygraph, not before continuing to talk. That conditional invocation didn’t stop the interrogation. The agents asked him to clarify, he kept talking, and the court said that was his choice. The lesson: when you invoke, invoke. Not for one purpose and not for another. See our full Campbell case study.
United States v. Hurtado (Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, March 2026) is the closest call of the three. When the CID agent asked Hurtado if he wanted a lawyer, he said: “I mean, I would like to speak to a lawyer, but um, yeah.” The agent kept going. Hurtado eventually confessed. CAAF held that stammering, uncertain, vague sentence was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. Questioning should have stopped right then. But the court’s decision was only 3-2, with the Chief Judge taking CID’s side, arguing that Hurtado’s “but” injected enough ambiguity to justify a clarifying question. One vote the other way and Hurtado would have lost. Don’t put yourself in that position. Keep it simple: I want a lawyer.
How Far They’ll Push It Before You Even See the Rights Card
The games don’t start when the agent pulls out the form. They start with how they describe what’s about to happen, what the form is for, and what signing it means. Agents have been documented telling suspects the rights advisement is a formality, an umbrella catch-all, just a little something we have to do, paperwork for us, protection for us as much as you. Campbell shows what that looks like word-for-word.
The forms themselves tell the same story. The Army’s current form presents one option: waive here. The non-waiver section that existed on the old form is gone. The Navy and Marine Corps form is titled “Military Rights Waiver” (not a rights form, a waiver form). The Air Force form’s second page is blank white space above a signature line titled “Statement,” with plenty of space for your confession. The Coast Guard form is the only one that treats invoking as a valid choice.
Scottgeorge shows what happens when the nature-of-accusation field, the line where the agent is supposed to write what you’re actually accused of, is left effectively empty, and the suspect is told he’ll find out what’s on it after he signs. Even if the line contains a reference to an Article of the UCMJ, that’s not much to go on and it’s not what CAAF says you’re entitled to.
For a full breakdown of what each branch’s form looks like, what the law actually requires before you sign anything, and what a proper advisement would look like, see our Article 31(b) rights forms overview.
This blog post is not intended to be legal advice. This post reflects our experience and what we believe works best for our clients. It is intended for informational use only. This blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with our firm. Any military member facing an allegation of misconduct should consult with lawyer who specializes in military criminal law before taking action or making decisions in a military investigation or court-martial.