In subsection (a), the word “commissioned” is inserted before the word “officer” for clarity. The word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be”. Show In subsections (a), (b), and (c)(1), the words “with the armed forces” are omitted as surplusage. In subsection (b), the word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be”. The words “a commissioned” are substituted for the word “an” for clarity. In subsection (c), the words “member” and “members”, respectively are substituted for the words “person” and “persons”. The words “of an armed force” are inserted for clarity. In subsection (c)(1), the word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be”. The word “before” is substituted for the words “prior to”. The words “the accused may not” are substituted for the words “no enlisted person shall”, for clarity. The word “If” is substituted for the word “Where”. In subsection (c)(2), the word “means” is substituted for the words “shall mean”. The words “Secretary concerned” are substituted for the words “Secretary of the Department”. The word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”. The word “than”, before the words “a body”, is omitted as surplusage. In subsection (d)(1), the word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”. The word “member” is substituted for the word “person”. In subsection (d)(2), the word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be”. The word “detail” is substituted for the word “appoint”, since the filling of the position involved is not appointment to an office in the constitutional sense. The words “member of an armed force” and “members of the armed forces”, respectively, are substituted for the words “person” and “persons”. Amendments 2016—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5182(a), amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) related to service on general and special courts-martial by enlisted members. Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5182(b)(2), added subsec. (d). Former subsec. (d) redesignated (e). Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5182(b)(1), redesignated subsec. (d) as (e). Former subsec. (e) redesignated (f). Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5203(e)(2), which directed amendment of this section by substituting “preliminary hearing officer” for “investigating officer” in subsec. (d)(2), was executed by making the substitution in subsec. (e)(2) to reflect the probable intent of Congress and the redesignation of subsec. (d) as (e) by Pub. L. 114–328, § 5182(b)(1). Subsec. (e)(3). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5182(c), added par. (3). Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5182(b)(1), redesignated subsec. (e) as (f). 1986—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 99–661 substituted “has requested orally on the record or in writing” for “has requested in writing”. 1983—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 98–209, § 13(c), struck out “the word” before “ ‘unit’ ”. Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 98–209, § 3(b), added subsec. (e). 1968—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 90–632 inserted requirement that an accused’s request for inclusion of enlisted members on his court-martial be made before conclusion of a pre-trial session called by the military judge under section 839(a) or before the court is assembled for his trial and substituted “assembled” for “convened” to describe the calling together of the court for the trial in provision allowing such calling together without requested enlisted members if such members cannot be obtained. Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries Effective Date of 2016 Amendment Effective Date of 1986 Amendment “The amendment made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall apply only to a case in which arraignment is completed on or after the effective date of this title.” The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), enacted by Congress, contains the substantive and procedural laws governing the military justice system. The President prescribes procedural rules and punishments for violations of crimes in the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM). Investigations of serious offenses involving military personnel such as rape, indecent assault, drugs, or larceny are usually conducted by a criminal investigative agency, such as the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID). For less serious offenses and most military-connected crimes, the authority rests with military or security police investigators. In cases involving very minor offenses, the immediate commander of the military member suspected will conduct or cause to be made a preliminary inquiry. Lawyers, known as judge advocates, are actively involved in advising commanders throughout the process. Unlike civilian communities, military commanders exercise discretion in deciding whether an offense should be charged and how the offenders should be punished. The disposition decision is one of the most important and difficult decisions facing a commander. The commander has a number of options available for the resolution of disciplinary problems. Briefly summarized, they are as follows:
A general court-martial is the military's highest level trial court. This court tries service members for the most serious crimes. The punishment authority of the general court-martial is limited by the maximum authorized punishment for each offense in the Manual for Courts-Martial. Before any charge is sent to a general court-martial, an Article 32 investigation must be conducted. The Article 32 investigation is closely akin to the civilian grand jury investigation. At the close of the hearing, the Article 32 officer, makes a recommendation concerning the disposition of the charges. The recommendation is not binding on the convening authority. The general court-martial may take either of two forms. It may consist of a military judge and not less than five members, or solely of a military judge. The accused may elect trial by judge alone in all cases except those referred as capital cases. In a trial with court members, a minimum of five members must be present. An enlisted accused is entitled to at least one-third enlisted membership upon request. The trial of a court-martial is not unlike a civilian criminal trial. The differences lie in the procedural requirements. The military follows rules of evidence patterned after the Federal Rules of Evidence. The members or judge hears evidence and renders a decision concerning the accused's guilt. In order to convict the accused the members must be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. If the accused is convicted, a sentencing hearing is held. An accused convicted by court-martial is entitled to review of his trial. Before approving a court-martial conviction and sentence, the convening authority must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the findings are supported by the evidence. The type of review depends on the level of trial and nature of the approved sentence. Some appeals may proceed all the way the United States Supreme Court. The initial step in the appellate process is a review by the convening authority. The convening authority may approve all or any part of a legal sentence; he may mitigate a sentence or change the punishment to one of a different nature so long as the severity of the punishment is not increased. If the convening authority approves a punitive discharge (either a bad-conduct discharge, dishonorable discharge, or dismissal) or confinement in excess of one year, the record of trial must be reviewed by the Department's Court of Criminal Appeals. This court, composed of military judges, will weigh the evidence and decide whether the findings and sentence are legally correct and, if so, whether the sentence is appropriate. The court may set aside the findings and sentence or may reduce the sentence, but it cannot increase the severity of the punishment. The next court in the appellate process, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, is composed of five civilian judges appointed by the President for fifteen years. This Court's review questions of law only. Both the accused and the government may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The review by the Supreme Court is entirely discretionary and extremely rare. What is the lowest level of courtA summary court-martial is the lowest level of court-martial available. It is designed to promptly resolve minor offenses under a simple procedure.
What is Field General courtA general or field general court martial shall have power to try any person subject to this Act for any offence made punishable therein, and to pass any sentence authorised by this Act.
Who has general courts martial convening authority?The convening authority for a general court-martial is known as the General Court-Martial Convening Authority. In most cases, it's going to be the most senior-level Officer for the base.
How many court martials are there in India?There are four kinds of courts-martial in India. These are the General Court Martial (GCM), District Court Martial (DCM), Summary General Court Martial (SGCM) and Summary Court Martial (SCM).
|