Yes, both trial and defense counsel typically present closing arguments at Article 32 hearings, though procedures remain flexible given the informal nature. Arguments focus on evidence presented, credibility assessments, and appropriate disposition recommendations rather than guilt determinations. PHOs generally permit reasonable argument length without strict time limitations applied at trials.
Government arguments emphasize evidence supporting probable cause, witness credibility supporting charges, and why court-martial referral serves justice and good order. Prosecutors address any raised defenses, explain investigative thoroughness, and counter alternative disposition suggestions. Arguments remain recommendation-focused rather than conviction-oriented.
Defense arguments enjoy broad scope addressing not only probable cause deficiency but also why alternative dispositions better serve all interests. Counsel argue witness credibility problems, investigation inadequacies, and extenuating circumstances supporting non-referral. Character evidence and service record receive emphasis unavailable during trial guilt phase.
PHO management varies from formal presentations to conversational discussions about evidence and recommendations. Some PHOs ask questions during arguments, creating dialogue rather than monologues. Written submissions may supplement or replace oral arguments based on complexity and time constraints. The flexible approach recognizes arguments assist PHO analysis while avoiding trial-like formality. Strategic choices include comprehensive arguments revealing defense theories versus minimal presentations preserving trial surprise.