Her argument was surprisingly fact free, relying on emotion rather than evidence.

The fact-free rumor spread quickly across social media, causing confusion.

The defendant was charged as an accessary after the fact for hiding the suspect.

Although he never set foot at the scene, the prosecutor argued that he was an accessory before the fact because he had planned and directed the attack.

The defense argued that he was merely an accessary before the fact, not the one who committed the robbery.

After the robbery, he was charged as an accessory after the fact for hiding the getaway car.

The trial focused on the accessaries before the fact who had coordinated the plan but never entered the bank.

The investigation revealed that the accessaries after the fact had provided shelter and funds to the fugitives.

The court convicted several accessories after the fact for obstructing the investigation.

The prosecutor argued that the accessories before the fact had coordinated the plan, even though they never attended the meeting where the robbery was executed.