Courts-martial of the United States

318: 507:

words, an accused service member must be "given the benefit of the doubt;” or, put more simply: there must be no reasonable chance or likelihood–per the evidence and proceedings–of the accused's innocence. If the accused is charged with a capital offense, then a conviction requires a unanimous verdict. Otherwise, for all other offenses, a conviction requires a three-fourths majority of the court-martial members to vote "guilty." If an accused service member elects to be tried by a military judge sitting alone, rather than by a panel of court-martial members, then the military judge will determine guilt. Unlike in the civilian system, there are no "hung juries;" failure to reach the voting threshold for a conviction results in a verdict of "not guilty," barring the federal government from retrying the defendant by court-martial or in federal court for the same offense arising from the same incident. However, a "not guilty" verdict does not prevent a state government from trying the defendant in a civilian state court on the same offense.

223:(1949–51) set out to create a unified system of military justice for all the Federal military services, and appointed a committee chaired by Harvard Law Professor Edmund Morgan to study military justice and draft appropriate legislation. According to Professor Morgan, the task was to draft legislation that would ensure full protection of the rights of individuals without unduly interfering with either military discipline or the exercise of military functions. This would mean a "complete repudiation of a system of military justice conceived of only as an instrument of command," but would also negate "a system designed to be administered as the criminal law is administered in a civilian criminal court." The result was the 511:

upon conviction. If an accused service member elects to be tried by military judge sitting alone, then that military judge will sentence the accused if a conviction results from the trial. A sentence to death requires trial by court-martial members; and all members must concur in that sentence. All other sentences may be adjudged in a trial by military judge sitting alone, or if the accused elects to be tried by members, then by the concurrence of three-fourths of the court-martial members. Military judge-alone sentencing in general and special courts-martial will be mandatory for offenses for which the death penalty has not been sought by the government after December 27, 2023 per the 2022 NDAA. The

601:(CAAF). This court consists of 5 civilian judges, appointed for a fifteen-year term, and it can correct any legal error it may find. Appellate defense counsel will also be available to assist the accused at no charge. Again, the accused can also be represented by civilian counsel, but at their own expense. Review by the CAAF is discretionary and a limited number of cases are reviewed each year. For the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 2012, and ending on September 30, 2013, CAAF received 964 cumulative filings and disposed of 900 cases. Of these 900 cases, 39 were disposed of by signed or per curiam opinions and 861 were disposed by memorandum or order. 20: 691:, the Supreme Court determined that the test for determining whether an Article III court possessed the constitutional authority to review the merits of an appeal from a court-martial rested on the sole question as to whether the court-martial possessed jurisdiction over the person prosecuted in it. As a result, the Army or Navy could deviate from their respective military crimes to the detriment of a service-member. Thus, unless the Army, Navy, or a president determined the court-martial had been conducted in error, there was little relief available to the service-member. Kastenberg has pointed out that the Court issued 190:

by the regimental commander; however, unlike the British equivalent, the regimental commander could not sit as president. Further, the Continental Congress broke away from the British system in an even more significant way: the American Articles of War were created by a legislative enactment and not by an executive order. Thus, in the American system, the legislature undertook the government of the armed forces from the beginning—military justice was not going to be left to the executive. Second, Congress demonstrated its flexibility and willingness to change the Articles as necessary. The top military lawyer, Colonel

306: 699:, and there is a relationship between the two decision. The Court apparently agreed with the arguments of counsel for the United States, Ransom Hooker Gillet, that the Army's discipline in Kansas was in question because several officers found it appalling that they might have to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. (Gillet later became a 'copperhead' during the Civil War and accused President Abraham Lincoln of being a tyrant). While one of the purposes for the government's argument in 489:, as the convening authority. The tribunal is established with the express purpose of considering a set of charges that the commander has referred to the court. The convening Authority considers the statutory prescription offered by the United States Congress, those "best qualified," in selecting the "panel" or jury for the court-martial. In turn, the members of the court-martial, who are generally under the command of the convening authority, take an 498:

court-martial. The accused may also challenge a member of the panel for cause "at any other time during trial when it becomes apparent that a ground for challenge exists." The UCMJ prohibits a convening authority from unlawfully influencing the court. A defense attorney may bring a motion to challenge the validity of the court-martial where it appears that a convening authority has unlawfully influenced court-martial members.

1614: 588:

exercising that authority the courts of criminal appeals may separately weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact, even though only the trial court saw and heard the witnesses. The accused will be assigned an appellate defense counsel to represent them on appeal free of charge. Civilian counsel may be retained at the accused's own expense.

178: 553:

limitation on the power to reduce those types of punishments exist for when the convicted service member enters into a pretrial agreement to plead guilty in return for having any adjudged dishonorable discharge reduced to a bad conduct discharge, or when the convicted service member provides "substantial assistance" to the investigation or prosecution of another person.

375:

request a court composed of at least one-third enlisted personnel. A special court-martial may instead consist of a judge alone if requested by the accused or if the convening authority decides so. An accused before a special court-martial is entitled to free legal representation by military defense counsel, and can also retain civilian counsel at his or her expense.

432:, punishment other than arrest or confinement is prohibited before trial, and confinement should be no more rigorous than is required to ensure the accused's presence at trial. In UCMJ parlance, "arrest" refers to a physical restriction to specified geographic limits. "Apprehension", in United States military law, is what would normally be called an 635: 528:. Cases involving a punitive discharge, dismissal, confinement for one year or more, or death will undergo automatic review by the appropriate military Court of Criminal Appeals. Further review is possible to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In cases where the sentence is not sufficiently severe, there is no right to appellate review. 174:. When the United States declared independence and fought the Revolutionary War, "it had a ready-made military justice system." Despite the Colonists' dissatisfaction with the British, they still recognized the intrinsic value of the British military justice system in providing good order and discipline to its own armed forces. 337:

nature, because there is no right to counsel; though, as a benefit, the Air Force provides such to Airmen so charged. Enlisted personnel must consent to a trial by summary court-martial and commissioned officers may not be tried in such proceedings. A summary court conviction is legally deemed to be akin to an

253:

The solution to the government of the armed forces was a classic balancing of constitutional interests and powers. They assured that Congress—with its responsiveness to the population, its fact-finding ability, and its collective deliberative processes—would provide for the government of the armed forces.

552:

Further, after 24 June 2014, convening authorities may not disapprove, commute, or suspend an adjudged sentence, in whole or in part, an adjudged sentence to be dismissed, dishonorably discharged, to receive a bad conduct discharge, or to serve more than six months of confinement. Exceptions to this

548:

the sentence actually adjudged did not include a dismissal, dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge, or confinement for more than six months. Further, the convening authority may not dismiss or reduce a conviction for rape, sexual assault, rape or sexual assault of a child, or forcible sodomy,

296:

Until 1950, the federal courts operated on the strict habeas test where often the sole question considered by the court was whether the military possessed personal jurisdiction over the soldier or sailor on trial. That is, the courts did not review whether the military had complied with due process.

252:

The Framers of the Constitution were cognizant of the power struggle between Parliament and the King regarding the powers of the military. Many of the Framers were combat veterans from the Continental Army and understood the demands of military life and the need for a well-disciplined fighting force.

243:

In 2001, the commission on the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice disagreed with the 1999 JSC Report, noting "there is no aspect of military criminal procedure that diverges further from civilian practice, or creates a greater impression of improper influence than the antiquated

197:

Until 1916, a service-member accused in a general court-martial did not have a right to a defense counsel. The service member could, however, request a defense counsel or pay for one. A judge advocate, prior to 1916 had a three-fold duty. To prosecute the case, to ensure that the accused soldier's

143:

Tribunals for the trial of military offenders have coexisted with the early history of armies. The modern court-martial is deeply rooted in systems that predated written military codes and were designed to bring order and discipline to armed, and sometimes barbarous, fighting forces. Both the ancient

733:

Of all the legislative courts created by Congress, courts-martial have received the most deference from Article III courts. Under a standard of review known as the "separate community" or "military deference" doctrine, the courts have proclaimed the armed forces to be "a specialized society separate

587:

The service courts of criminal appeals have the power to reverse convictions that are either legally or factually insufficient, and to reduce sentences that they deem to be inappropriately severe. The power to determine factual sufficiency is a unique power for an appellate court to possess, and in

561:

After a conviction has been reviewed by the convening authority, if the sentence includes death, dismissal, a dishonorable discharge, a bad conduct discharge, or confinement for a year or more, then the case is reviewed by the appropriate service Court of Criminal Appeals. The four service Courts of

536:

In every case resulting in conviction, the convening authority (usually the same commander who ordered the trial to proceed and selected the members of the court-martial) must review the case and decide whether to approve the findings and sentence. Prior to 24 June 2014, federal law provided that a

510:

Sentencing in a trial by court-martial is carried out by the military judge on non-capital counts and by the panel on capital counts. In other words, if an accused service member elects to have court-martial members determine his or her guilt, those same court-martial members will adjudge a sentence

189:

were the template for the American military justice system. Accordingly, a general court-martial panel consisted of thirteen commissioned officers selected by a convening authority, with a field grade officer as president. A regimental court-martial consisted of five commissioned officers selected

797:

In certain limited circumstances, service members have their cases heard by the Supreme Court. Since 2005, various bills have been introduced in Congress to give service members an appeal of their cases to the United States Supreme Court. None of these bills has been enacted, and as of 2010 there

506:

At a trial by court-martial (as with a civilian criminal trial), the defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the government via lawful and competent evidence. Reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved in favor of the accused. In other

387:

A general court-martial is the highest court level. It consists of a military judge, trial counsel (prosecutor), defense counsel, and eight officers sitting as a panel of court-martial members. An enlisted accused may request a court composed of at least one-third enlisted personnel. An accused may

365:

An accused before a summary court-martial is not entitled to receive legal representation from military defense counsel. However, while not required by law, some services, such as the United States Air Force, provide the accused at a trial by summary court-martial free military counsel as a matter

275:

By distributing power over the armed forces between the legislative and executive branches, the Framers "avoided much of the political-military power struggle which typified so much of the early history of the British court-martial system." Moreover, the Framers made it clear that while the command

374:

A special court-martial is the intermediate court level. It consists of a military judge, trial counsel (prosecutor), defense counsel, and four officers sitting as a panel of court members. The military judge may detail a military magistrate to preside over the proceedings. An enlisted accused may

361:

of E-4 or below, he or she can be sentenced to 30 days of confinement, reduction to pay grade E-1, or restriction for 60 days. Punishments for service members in pay grades E-5 and higher (i.e.., sergeant in the Army or Marine Corps, petty officer 2nd Class in the Navy or Coast Guard) are similar,

378:

Regardless of the offenses involved, a special court-martial sentence is limited to no more than forfeiture of two-thirds basic pay per month for one year, and additionally for enlisted personnel, one year confinement (or a lesser amount if the offenses have a lower maximum), and/or a bad-conduct

119:

State National Guards (air and army), can convene summary and special courts martial for state-level, peacetime military offenses committed by non-federalized Guard Airmen and Soldiers, in the same manner as federal courts martial proceed. The authority for State National Guards to convene courts

292:

in the legislative branch of the government. The First Congress and the Framers were also cognizant of the age and history of the court-martial with commander involvement, as well as the customs and traditions that pertained to it. In 1969, the Supreme Court in O’Callahan v. Parker, stripped the

239:

was required by Congress to study the issue of command selection of panel members. Congress did not take action when the Joint Services Committee (JSC) concluded that the "current system is most likely to obtain the best members within the operational constraints of the military justice system."

493:

to "faithfully and impartially try, according to the evidence, their conscience, and the laws applicable to trial by court-martial, the case of the accused." By their oath, the panel members expressly agree to leave behind any influence from the commander who appointed them. In cases where the

349:

Trial by summary court-martial provides a simple procedure for resolution of charges of relatively minor misconduct committed by enlisted members of the military. Officers may not be tried by summary court-martial. The enlisted accused must consent to be tried by summary court-martial, and if

737:

Today's court-martial system, including command selection of jurors, the lack of unanimity in verdicts, and the allowance of 3 or 5 member panels, has thus far withstood scrutiny. This is perhaps because an accused in a trial by general or special court-martial enjoys significant statutory due

515:

provides that only military judges will sentence defendants in non-capital cases (and for non-capital offenses in a capital case) after December 27, 2023; defendants may no longer elect member sentencing for non-capital charges after December 27. Member sentencing will continue to be used for

336:

courts" akin to misdemeanor state courts, because they cannot impose confinement longer than one year. Summary courts-martial have no civilian equivalent, other than perhaps to noncriminal magistrate's proceedings, in that they have been declared by the US Supreme Court to be administrative in

537:

convening authority's discretion to modify a finding or sentence to the benefit of a convicted servicemember was a matter of command prerogative, and was final. Following 24 June 2014, the convening authority's right to grant a convicted service member relief has been significantly curtailed.

284:

that were currently in place for the Continental Army. It can thus be said that Congress continued the court-martial as previously established, and "the court-martial is perceived to be in fact older than the Constitution, and therefore older than any court of the United States instituted or

276:

of the military lie with the executive, the military would be governed and regulated according to the law handed down by the legislative branch. Therefore, the government of the armed forces would always reflect the will of the people as expressed through their representatives in Congress.

497:

The appointed or retained defense attorney may challenge both the military judge and members of the panel for cause. However, the military judge determines the relevance and validity of any challenge. The prosecution and defense initially possess one peremptory challenge to members of the

198:

or sailor's rights were protected – including making sure that witnesses favorable to the accused were present – and to advise the court-martial on the law. Until 1969, there was no military trial judge ensuring that an accused's due process rights were protected. According to

427:

of the UCMJ, "immediate steps" should be taken to bring the accused to trial. Although there is currently no upper time limit on detention before trial, Rule 707 of the Manual for Courts-Martial prescribes a general maximum of 120 days for "speedy trial". Under Article

202:

Professor Joshua E. Kastenberg, there were aspects of a court-martial that exceeded state criminal courts in due process protections, but, there were widespread due process deficits which caused Congress to reevaluate courts-martial in 1920 and 1945-50 respectively.

194:, informed Congress that the Articles were in need of revision. Congress would go on to revise the Articles several times to reflect the realities of a small military force. Nonetheless, the commander retained his role in the administration of justice. 1167: 317: 596:

From the service court of criminal appeals, a service member, if sentenced to either death, dismissal, dishonorable discharge, bad conduct discharge, or more than a year confinement, may also petition the United States' highest military court—the

401:

for certain offenses, confinement, a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge for enlisted personnel, a dismissal for officers, or a number of other forms of punishment. A general court-martial is the only forum that may adjudge a sentence to death.

1145: 734:

from civilian society" with unique needs. The Article III courts will not invalidate the balance reached by Congress as regards the administration of military justice unless the "fundamental right" being affected is "extraordinarily weighty."

279:

After ratification of the Constitution in 1789, the First Congress undertook legislative action to provide for the government and regulation of the armed forces of the United States. On September 29, 1789, the Congress expressly adopted the

934:

Joshua E. Kastenberg, To Raise and Discipline an Army: Major General Enoch Crowder, the Judge Advocate General's Officeand the Realignment of Civil and Military Relations in World War I(DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2017),

722:

to create specialized tribunals, including courts-martial. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress shall have the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces."

405:

Before a case goes to a general court-martial, a pretrial investigation under Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice must be conducted, unless waived by the accused; this is the equivalent to a civilian

1422:

Joshua E. Kastenberg, "A Sesquicentennial Historic Analysis of Dynes v. Hoover and the Supreme Court's Bow to Military Necessity: From Its Relationship to Dred Scott v. Sandford to Its Contemporary Influence", 39

260:, was to create a government in which separate branches of power served as a check and balance against the other. Principles of separation of powers also applied to the military. The Framers vested power in the 1028:

Joshua E. Kastenberg, Cause and Effect: The Origins and Impact of Justice William O. Douglas’ Anti-Military Ideology from World War II to O’Callahan V. Parker, Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, Vol. 26, Winter

144:

Greeks and the Romans had military justice codes, although no written versions of them survive. Moreover, nearly every form of military tribunal included a trial before a panel or members of some type.

140:

and the Constitution. While military justice in the United States has evolved considerably over the years, the convening authority has remained the instrument of selecting a panel for courts-martial.

792: 170:

between the American Colonists and the British in 1775, the British were operating under the 1765 edition of the Articles of War. This version would serve as the template for military justice in the

1510: 379:

discharge; if trial is by military judge alone, this is further reduced to a maximum of confinement for six months and/or forfeiture of pay for more than six months, and no discharge is available.

132:

From the earliest beginnings of the United States, military commanders have played a central role in the administration of military justice. The American military justice system, derived from its

540:

After 24 June 2014, convening authorities may not dismiss or reduce a conviction to one for a lesser offense unless the maximum possible sentence of confinement listed for the offense in the

1718: 73:, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The 1254: 366:

of policy. If the government chooses not to provide free military defense counsel to the accused, then that person may retain civilian counsel to represent them, at their own expense.

512: 475:, the convening authority personally selects the members of a court-martial panel. Whether this practice is conducive to fair process has been the subject of critical investigation. 983:

Major Christopher W. Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape: In Defense of Convening Authority Selection and Appointment of Court-Martial Panel Members, 190 MIL. L. REV. 176, 212 (2003)

871:

Major Christopher W. Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape: In Defense of Convening Authority Selection and Appointment of Court-Martial Panel Members, 176 Mil. L. Rev. 190, 203 (2003)

256:

The Framers of the Constitution had a great respect for the value of separation of powers. One of the primary goals of the Constitutional Convention, in remedying the defects of the

410:

process. An accused before a general court-martial is entitled to free legal representation by military defense counsel, and can also retain civilian counsel at his or her expense.

350:

consent is not provided then the command may dispose of the allegation through other means, including directing that the case be tried before a special or general court-martial.

1697: 1660: 471:

would establish the rules for disciplining the armed forces. From the beginning, Congress has retained the long-standing practice whereby, contrary to the principle of random

1841: 524:

There are procedures for post-trial review in every case, although the extent of those appellate rights depends upon the punishment imposed by the court and approved by the

1681: 328:

There are three types of federal courts-martial—summary, special, and general. A conviction at a general court-martial is equivalent to a civilian felony conviction in a

1823: 1664: 353:

The summary court-martial consists of one individual, who is not a military attorney, but still functions as judge and acts as the sole finder of fact. The maximum

711: 1598: 707: 618: 614: 159:. This, in turn, laid a foundation for modern systems of military justice that strive to do the same. The Court of Chivalry had a direct impact on the British 1871: 1803: 1463: 1818: 1559: 783:

Given those statutory rights, the balance that Congress has struck in the administration of justice will not be lightly disturbed by an Article III court.

726:

Even where life and liberty are at stake, legislative courts are not required to grant all of the rights that are intrinsic to the Article III courts. The

571: 227:(UCMJ)—a code that afforded a measure of due process to service members, while retaining command control over the appointment of court-martial members. 1255:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judicial_division_record_home/2022/vol26-1/major-changes-in-uniform-code-of-military-justice/

947: 1734: 293:

military of much of the jurisdiction that Congress had enabled in the UCMJ. However, by 1987, the Supreme Court reversed course and accepted that

1759: 215:, concerns from veterans’ organizations and bar associations regarding the military justice system in general, and, in particular, the problem of 1876: 199: 1813: 1532: 1500: 1378: 598: 581: 452: 898:

Major Richard D. Rosen, Civilian Courts and the Military Justice System: Collateral Review of Courts-Martial, 108 Mil. L. Rev. 5, 18 (1985)

645: 730:

has, instead, only disturbed the statutory due process system of a given legislative court if the question concerns "fundamental rights."

656: 1808: 1782: 1635: 1459: 576: 525: 19: 1846: 1701: 727: 358: 236: 1524: 1492: 1370: 674: 1645: 1603: 224: 46: 609:

As a final measure of appeal, a convicted service member may also petition the President of the United States for a reprieve or

1552: 1787: 687:

As noted above, the federal courts had been historically reticent to grant appeals in courts-martial. In the 1857 decision,

566: 1447: 1129: 880:

Gordon D. Henderson, Courts-Martial and the Constitution: The Original Understanding, 71 HARV. L. REV. 293, 298 n.41 (1957)

78: 38: 235:

The next time Congress had formal hearings on the UCMJ was when it passed the Military Justice Act of 1983. In 1999, the

464: 329: 186: 719: 220: 1293: 1545: 907:

American Articles of War of 1776, § XIV, art. 1 (reprinted in Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, supra, at 961)

460: 297:

Beginning in the 1950s, the federal courts gradually accepted appeals based on claims of a denial of due process.

216: 167: 155:. These courts both strove to strike a balance between the demands of good order and discipline and the concept of 1629: 541: 393: 257: 137: 70: 1395: 494:

accused is an enlisted member, the accused may request that enlisted service members be appointed to the panel.

1582: 133: 74: 1168:"Reforming Court-Martial Panel Selection: Why Change Makes Sense for Military Commanders and Military Justice" 1754: 448:

of the UCMJ, members of the court are selected from members of the armed forces by the convening authority.

338: 944: 807: 468: 261: 104:

present the facts, legal aspects, and arguments most favorable to each side; a military judge determines

1471: 742: 649:

that states a Knowledge (XXG) editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.

305: 963:

Edmund Morgan, The Background of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 6 Vand. L. Rev. 169, 174 (1953)

706:

It is important to place a court-martial appeal to the Federal Court in its context as a legislative (

163:. The early British Articles of War reflected a concern for due process and panel member composition. 322: 124:) outside the federally regulated National Guard convene courts-martial by authority of state laws. 1001:

Captain David M. Schlueter, The Court-Martial: A Historical Survey, 87 MIL. L. REV. 129, 149 (1980)

749: 58: 703:

had been mooted by the Civil War, it remained the law on courts-martial appeals through the 1940.

1505: 1467: 770: 486: 398: 85: 62: 835:

Captain David M. Schlueter, The Court-Martial: An Historical Survey, 87 MIL. L. REV. 129 (1980)

1528: 1520: 1496: 1488: 1374: 1366: 715: 714:

courts do not handle all of the judicial business in the United States. Congress has used its

152: 148: 50: 1411: 1577: 1537: 776: 171: 113: 105: 89: 1399: 1133: 951: 391:

In a general court-martial, the maximum punishment is that set for each offense under the

281: 160: 1080:

Rule for Courts-Martial 1301(e), Part II, Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2012)

1068:

Rule for Courts-Martial 1301(d), Part II, Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2012)

1038:

Rule for Courts-Martial 1301(b), Part II, Manual for Courts-Martial United States (2012)

945:

Report of the Commission on the 50th Anniversary of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

357:

at a summary court-martial varies with the accused's paygrade. If the accused is in the

472: 310: 66: 42: 1865: 191: 1487:. (Charleston: J. Hoff, 1809), republished (New York: Lawbook Exchange, June 2007), 1365:. (Charleston: J. Hoff, 1809), republished (New York: Lawbook Exchange, June 2007), 972: 756: 289: 212: 121: 445: 429: 424: 177: 1113: 1099: 332:

or a state criminal trial court. Special courts-martial are considered "federal

1482: 1126: 333: 265: 156: 54: 1363:

A Treatise on Martial Law, and Courts-Martial as Practiced in the United States

407: 354: 97: 1294:"§860. Art. 60. Post-trial processing in general and special courts-martial" 288:

The Framers consciously placed the power to regulate courts-martial and set

269: 101: 362:

except that they can only be reduced one pay grade and cannot be confined.

1019:

William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 47-48 (2d Ed. 1920 reprint)

482: 147:

The concept of the American military court-martial was derived from the

120:

martial is under Title 32 of the US Code. States that have militaries (

81:, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states. 826:

William Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 45 (2nd Ed. 1920 reprint)

763: 45:

are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the

1390: 844:

See generally Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents, supra., at 45-47.

748:

information of the charges brought, including the ability to obtain a

625:

Courts-martial and appellate courts as legislative (Article I) courts

610: 479: 433: 93: 316: 304: 176: 34: 18: 219:

of courts-martial, led to substantive Congressional reform. The

1515:

Saltzburg, Stephen; Schinasi, Lee D; & Schluster, David A.,

1146:"The Court-Martial Panel Selection Process: a Critical Analysis" 490: 456: 109: 49:(UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including 1541: 793:

Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel legislation

628: 1448:

Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM), United States (2008 Edition)

1089:

Air Force Instruction 51-201, paragraph 5.3.2.3 (6 June 2013)

108:, and the members of the panel (the military equivalent of a 779:

in cases where the sentence received is sufficiently severe.

646:

personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay

272:

with only a collateral role in governing the armed forces.

1114:"10 U.S. Code § 816 - Art. 16. Courts-martial classified" 1100:"10 U.S. Code § 816 - Art. 16. Courts-martial classified" 652: 549:

regardless of the sentence actually adjudged at trial.

513:

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022

925:

Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape, supra, at 211-212

112:) (or military judge in a judge-alone case) determine 61:. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of 1475:, (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841) 154 pages. 248:

Constitutional foundation for federal courts-martial

1832: 1796: 1775: 1768: 1747: 1727: 1711: 1690: 1674: 1653: 1644: 1621: 1591: 1223: 1221: 1010:

Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape, supra, at 214.

889:Behan, Don't Tug on Superman's Cape, supra, at 205 151:in England and the military code of Sweden's King 1076: 1074: 718:under the Constitution in conjunction with the 557:Intermediate service courts of criminal appeals 1402:, Congressional Research Service, May 16, 2004 1348: 1346: 787:Access to the U.S. Supreme Court after appeals 613:under the Constitutional authority granted in 321:Civil War era Federal court martial after the 1553: 1046: 1044: 8: 853:Schlueter, The Court-Martial, supra., at 132 455:guaranteed American citizens the right of a 1819:Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 572:Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals 1772: 1650: 1560: 1546: 1538: 1719:Judge Advocate General's Corps, Air Force 1568:United States Military Judicial Authority 675:Learn how and when to remove this message 207:81st Congress sets out to create the UCMJ 485:created and appointed by the order of a 1760:Military tribunals in the United States 1604:Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 1059:Article 16, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. section 816 1050:Article 20, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. section 820 819: 231:Subsequent measures in Congress on UCMJ 41:or by state militaries. Most commonly, 1519:. (Newark: LexisNexis, January 2003). 200:University of New Mexico School of Law 1842:Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 1814:Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 1599:United States Constitution, Article I 599:Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 592:Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 582:Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 453:Founding Fathers of the United States 16:Trials conducted by the U.S. military 7: 1698:Judge Advocate General's Corps, Navy 1682:Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division 1661:Judge Advocate General's Corps, Army 1646:Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG) 1511:Model State Code of Military Justice 1392:Military Courts-Martial: An Overview 1296:. Office of the Law Revision Counsel 181:Court Martial of William Seeds, 1778 79:Model State Code of Military Justice 1872:Courts-martial in the United States 1824:Court of Military Commission Review 1809:Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 1412:CAAF Fiscal Year 2013 Annual Report 577:Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals 478:A court-martial has always been an 388:also request trial by judge alone. 31:Courts-martial of the United States 14: 1517:Military Rules of Evidence Manual 26:, Woodsfield, Ohio, March 8, 1865 1612: 633: 313:during his court martial in 1925 285:authorized by that instrument." 225:Uniform Code of Military Justice 47:Uniform Code of Military Justice 1788:Guantanamo military commissions 1506:Oregon Code of Military Justice 1804:Army Court of Criminal Appeals 1473:The Practice of Courts Martial 695:almost contemporaneously with 567:Army Court of Criminal Appeals 459:trial both in the text of the 1: 1877:United States military courts 916:1776 Articles, § XIV, art. 11 244:process of panel selection." 720:Necessary and Proper Clause 88:, as are all United States 1893: 1735:Coast Guard Legal Division 1389:Pollack, Estela I. Velez, 1322:10 USC 860(c)(3)(D) (2014) 1313:10 USC 860(c)(3)(B) (2014) 790: 532:Convening authority review 217:unlawful command influence 136:predecessor, predates the 1630:Manual for Courts-Martial 1610: 1573: 1170:. George Mason Law Review 1127:Manual for Courts-Martial 738:process rights, such as: 542:Manual for Courts-Martial 394:Manual for Courts-Martial 258:Articles of Confederation 138:Articles of Confederation 71:Manual for Courts-Martial 1583:Law of the United States 1439:, 510 US 163, 178 (1994) 798:is legislation pending. 75:American Bar Association 1748:Non-judicial punishment 1340:10 USC 860(c)(4) (2014) 1283:10 USC 860(c)(1) (2013) 467:, they determined that 436:in most legal systems. 397:(MCM), and may include 301:Types of courts-martial 268:branches, but left the 86:adversarial proceedings 53:and the enforcement of 24:The Spirit of Democracy 1437:Weiss v. United States 808:Nonjudicial punishment 769:the privilege against 762:compulsory process of 655:by rewriting it in an 562:Criminal Appeals are: 544:is two years or less, 419:Detention before trial 330:federal district court 325: 314: 182: 128:Historical development 27: 1245:10 U.S.C. § 852(b)(2) 1236:10 U.S.C. § 852(b)(1) 1215:10 U.S.C. § 852(a)(2) 1206:10 U.S.C. § 852(a)(1) 1197:10 U.S.C. § 851(c)(2) 1188:10 U.S.C. § 851(c)(1) 1148:. Military Law Review 791:Further information: 743:assistance of counsel 697:Dred Scott v. Sanford 440:Composition of courts 414:Court-martial process 383:General court-martial 370:Special court-martial 345:Summary court-martial 320: 308: 180: 22: 1485:, and Courts-Martial 516:capital sentencing. 323:Battle of Gettysburg 237:Secretary of Defense 1636:Convening authority 1479:Macomb, Alexander, 1361:Macomb, Alexander, 1331:10 USC 860(c)(4)(A) 750:bill of particulars 526:convening authority 84:Courts-martial are 1468:United States Army 1398:2016-03-03 at the 1227:10 U.S.C. § 851(d) 1132:2011-06-05 at the 950:2013-12-24 at the 771:self-incrimination 657:encyclopedic style 644:is written like a 605:Request for pardon 487:commanding officer 326: 315: 183: 59:occupied territory 51:military tribunals 28: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1743: 1742: 1533:978-0-327-16329-9 1501:978-1-58477-709-0 1460:Macomb, Alexander 1379:978-1-58477-709-0 716:enumerated powers 685: 684: 677: 185:The 1765 British 153:Gustavus Adolphus 149:Court of Chivalry 114:questions of fact 96:representing the 37:conducted by the 1884: 1773: 1651: 1616: 1615: 1578:Military justice 1562: 1555: 1548: 1539: 1440: 1434: 1428: 1420: 1414: 1409: 1403: 1387: 1381: 1359: 1353: 1350: 1341: 1338: 1332: 1329: 1323: 1320: 1314: 1311: 1305: 1304: 1302: 1301: 1290: 1284: 1281: 1275: 1272: 1266: 1263: 1257: 1252: 1246: 1243: 1237: 1234: 1228: 1225: 1216: 1213: 1207: 1204: 1198: 1195: 1189: 1186: 1180: 1179: 1177: 1175: 1164: 1158: 1157: 1155: 1153: 1142: 1136: 1124: 1118: 1117: 1110: 1104: 1103: 1096: 1090: 1087: 1081: 1078: 1069: 1066: 1060: 1057: 1051: 1048: 1039: 1036: 1030: 1026: 1020: 1017: 1011: 1008: 1002: 999: 993: 990: 984: 981: 975: 970: 964: 961: 955: 942: 936: 932: 926: 923: 917: 914: 908: 905: 899: 896: 890: 887: 881: 878: 872: 869: 863: 860: 854: 851: 845: 842: 836: 833: 827: 824: 777:appellate review 680: 673: 669: 666: 660: 637: 636: 629: 172:Continental Army 106:questions of law 69:laid out in the 1892: 1891: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1851: 1834: 1828: 1792: 1764: 1755:UCMJ Article 15 1739: 1723: 1707: 1686: 1670: 1640: 1617: 1613: 1608: 1587: 1569: 1566: 1456: 1454:Further reading 1444: 1443: 1435: 1431: 1427:595 (2008-2009) 1425:U. Mem. L. Rev. 1421: 1417: 1410: 1406: 1400:Wayback Machine 1388: 1384: 1360: 1356: 1351: 1344: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1326: 1321: 1317: 1312: 1308: 1299: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1282: 1278: 1273: 1269: 1264: 1260: 1253: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1205: 1201: 1196: 1192: 1187: 1183: 1173: 1171: 1166: 1165: 1161: 1151: 1149: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1134:Wayback Machine 1125: 1121: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1098: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1079: 1072: 1067: 1063: 1058: 1054: 1049: 1042: 1037: 1033: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1014: 1009: 1005: 1000: 996: 991: 987: 982: 978: 971: 967: 962: 958: 952:Wayback Machine 943: 939: 933: 929: 924: 920: 915: 911: 906: 902: 897: 893: 888: 884: 879: 875: 870: 866: 861: 857: 852: 848: 843: 839: 834: 830: 825: 821: 816: 804: 795: 789: 689:Dynes v. Hoover 681: 670: 664: 661: 653:help improve it 650: 638: 634: 627: 607: 594: 559: 534: 522: 504: 502:Burden of proof 442: 421: 416: 385: 372: 347: 303: 282:Articles of War 250: 233: 209: 187:Articles of War 161:Articles of War 130: 90:criminal courts 17: 12: 11: 5: 1890: 1888: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1864: 1863: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1838: 1836: 1830: 1829: 1827: 1826: 1821: 1816: 1811: 1806: 1800: 1798: 1794: 1793: 1791: 1790: 1785: 1783:Courts-martial 1779: 1777: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1763: 1762: 1757: 1751: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1741: 1740: 1738: 1737: 1731: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1722: 1721: 1715: 1713: 1709: 1708: 1706: 1705: 1694: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1685: 1684: 1678: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1669: 1668: 1657: 1655: 1648: 1642: 1641: 1639: 1638: 1633: 1625: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1609: 1607: 1606: 1601: 1595: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1586: 1585: 1580: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1567: 1565: 1564: 1557: 1550: 1542: 1536: 1535: 1513: 1508: 1503: 1481:A Treatise on 1477: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1442: 1441: 1429: 1415: 1404: 1382: 1354: 1342: 1333: 1324: 1315: 1306: 1285: 1276: 1267: 1258: 1247: 1238: 1229: 1217: 1208: 1199: 1190: 1181: 1159: 1137: 1119: 1105: 1091: 1082: 1070: 1061: 1052: 1040: 1031: 1021: 1012: 1003: 994: 985: 976: 973:Report, page 7 965: 956: 937: 927: 918: 909: 900: 891: 882: 873: 864: 855: 846: 837: 828: 818: 817: 815: 812: 811: 810: 803: 800: 788: 785: 781: 780: 774: 767: 760: 753: 746: 683: 682: 641: 639: 632: 626: 623: 606: 603: 593: 590: 585: 584: 579: 574: 569: 558: 555: 533: 530: 521: 518: 503: 500: 473:jury selection 465:Bill of Rights 444:Under Article 441: 438: 423:Under Article 420: 417: 415: 412: 384: 381: 371: 368: 346: 343: 311:Billy Mitchell 302: 299: 249: 246: 232: 229: 208: 205: 129: 126: 43:courts-martial 15: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1889: 1878: 1875: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1867: 1848: 1847:Supreme Court 1845: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1837: 1833:Discretionary 1831: 1825: 1822: 1820: 1817: 1815: 1812: 1810: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1799: 1795: 1789: 1786: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1771: 1769:Court systems 1767: 1761: 1758: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1750: 1746: 1736: 1733: 1732: 1730: 1726: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1714: 1710: 1703: 1699: 1696: 1695: 1693: 1689: 1683: 1680: 1679: 1677: 1673: 1666: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1647: 1643: 1637: 1634: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1624: 1620: 1605: 1602: 1600: 1597: 1596: 1594: 1590: 1584: 1581: 1579: 1576: 1575: 1572: 1563: 1558: 1556: 1551: 1549: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1525:0-87215-969-8 1522: 1518: 1514: 1512: 1509: 1507: 1504: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1493:1-58477-709-5 1490: 1486: 1484: 1478: 1476: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1464:Major General 1461: 1458: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1438: 1433: 1430: 1426: 1419: 1416: 1413: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371:1-58477-709-5 1368: 1364: 1358: 1355: 1352:10 USC 866(c) 1349: 1347: 1343: 1337: 1334: 1328: 1325: 1319: 1316: 1310: 1307: 1295: 1289: 1286: 1280: 1277: 1271: 1268: 1265:10 USC 866(b) 1262: 1259: 1256: 1251: 1248: 1242: 1239: 1233: 1230: 1224: 1222: 1218: 1212: 1209: 1203: 1200: 1194: 1191: 1185: 1182: 1169: 1163: 1160: 1147: 1141: 1138: 1135: 1131: 1128: 1123: 1120: 1115: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1095: 1092: 1086: 1083: 1077: 1075: 1071: 1065: 1062: 1056: 1053: 1047: 1045: 1041: 1035: 1032: 1025: 1022: 1016: 1013: 1007: 1004: 998: 995: 989: 986: 980: 977: 974: 969: 966: 960: 957: 953: 949: 946: 941: 938: 931: 928: 922: 919: 913: 910: 904: 901: 895: 892: 886: 883: 877: 874: 868: 865: 859: 856: 850: 847: 841: 838: 832: 829: 823: 820: 813: 809: 806: 805: 801: 799: 794: 786: 784: 778: 775: 772: 768: 766:and evidence; 765: 761: 758: 754: 751: 747: 744: 741: 740: 739: 735: 731: 729: 728:Supreme Court 724: 721: 717: 713: 709: 704: 702: 698: 694: 690: 679: 676: 668: 658: 654: 648: 647: 642:This section 640: 631: 630: 624: 622: 620: 616: 612: 604: 602: 600: 591: 589: 583: 580: 578: 575: 573: 570: 568: 565: 564: 563: 556: 554: 550: 547: 543: 538: 531: 529: 527: 519: 517: 514: 508: 501: 499: 495: 492: 488: 484: 481: 476: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 451:Although the 449: 447: 439: 437: 435: 431: 426: 418: 413: 411: 409: 403: 400: 396: 395: 389: 382: 380: 376: 369: 367: 363: 360: 356: 351: 344: 342: 340: 335: 331: 324: 319: 312: 307: 300: 298: 294: 291: 286: 283: 277: 273: 271: 267: 263: 259: 254: 247: 245: 241: 238: 230: 228: 226: 222: 221:81st Congress 218: 214: 206: 204: 201: 195: 193: 192:William Tudor 188: 179: 175: 173: 169: 168:war broke out 164: 162: 158: 154: 150: 145: 141: 139: 135: 127: 125: 123: 117: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 95: 91: 87: 82: 80: 77:has issued a 76: 72: 68: 64: 60: 56: 52: 48: 44: 40: 39:U.S. military 36: 32: 25: 21: 1675:Marine Corps 1628: 1516: 1480: 1472: 1436: 1432: 1424: 1418: 1407: 1391: 1385: 1362: 1357: 1336: 1327: 1318: 1309: 1298:. Retrieved 1288: 1279: 1270: 1261: 1250: 1241: 1232: 1211: 1202: 1193: 1184: 1174:December 19, 1172:. Retrieved 1162: 1152:December 19, 1150:. Retrieved 1140: 1122: 1108: 1094: 1085: 1064: 1055: 1034: 1024: 1015: 1006: 997: 992:Id., at 214. 988: 979: 968: 959: 940: 930: 921: 912: 903: 894: 885: 876: 867: 858: 849: 840: 831: 822: 796: 782: 757:speedy trial 736: 732: 725: 705: 700: 696: 692: 688: 686: 671: 662: 643: 608: 595: 586: 560: 551: 545: 539: 535: 523: 509: 505: 496: 477: 461:Constitution 450: 443: 422: 404: 392: 390: 386: 377: 373: 364: 352: 348: 341:proceeding. 327: 295: 290:military law 287: 278: 274: 255: 251: 242: 234: 213:World War II 210: 196: 184: 165: 146: 142: 131: 122:State Guards 118: 92:. That is, 83: 30: 29: 23: 1728:Coast Guard 1483:Martial Law 862:Id., at 134 712:Article III 463:and in the 334:misdemeanor 266:legislative 157:due process 55:martial law 1866:Categories 1300:2023-04-04 1274:10 USC 860 814:References 665:April 2023 615:Article II 408:grand jury 355:punishment 339:Article 15 98:government 1712:Air Force 1622:Standards 1592:Authority 764:witnesses 710:) court. 708:Article I 619:Section 2 359:pay grade 270:judiciary 262:executive 63:procedure 1702:Navy JAG 1665:Army JAG 1396:Archived 1130:Archived 948:Archived 802:See also 483:tribunal 469:Congress 309:Colonel 100:and the 67:evidence 1466:of the 651:Please 520:Appeals 134:British 102:accused 94:lawyers 1835:review 1797:Appeal 1531: 1523: 1499: 1491: 1377: 1369: 611:pardon 480:ad hoc 434:arrest 211:After 57:in an 35:trials 1776:Trial 935:40-92 773:; and 701:Dynes 693:Dynes 399:death 166:When 1691:Navy 1654:Army 1529:ISBN 1521:ISBN 1497:ISBN 1489:ISBN 1375:ISBN 1367:ISBN 1176:2010 1154:2010 1029:2009 954:p. 2 491:oath 457:jury 264:and 110:jury 65:and 33:are 546:and 1868:: 1527:; 1495:, 1470:, 1462:, 1373:, 1345:^ 1220:^ 1073:^ 1043:^ 755:a 621:. 617:, 446:25 430:13 425:10 116:. 1704:) 1700:( 1667:) 1663:( 1561:e 1554:t 1547:v 1303:. 1178:. 1156:. 1116:. 1102:. 759:; 752:; 745:; 678:) 672:( 667:) 663:( 659:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index