Scheduling conflicts are a common and often frustrating issue that can significantly affect the timeline of an Article 32 preliminary hearing. The hearing requires the coordination of numerous individuals, including the Preliminary Hearing Officer (PHO), the accused and their defense counsel, the government’s trial counsel, and all necessary witnesses, who may be military members or civilians located across the country or even overseas.
Conflicts in the schedules of any of these essential participants can lead to delays. Defense counsel, trial counsel, and PHOs, who are all typically busy judge advocates, may have competing obligations in other cases. Key witnesses may have operational commitments, training exercises, or deployments that make them unavailable on a particular date. Securing the presence of civilian witnesses can be particularly challenging and may require subpoenas and travel arrangements.
When a conflict arises, one of the parties will request a continuance or a rescheduling of the hearing from the PHO. The PHO has the discretion to grant such requests if there is good cause. The PHO must balance the need for a speedy disposition of the charges against the parties’ legitimate need to accommodate scheduling realities and ensure the availability of essential personnel.
These delays can sometimes be lengthy, pushing the hearing back by weeks or even months. While frustrating, it is a recognized part of the process. However, excessive or unreasonable delays caused by the government could potentially become the basis for a speedy trial motion later in the proceedings. The PHO and counsel are expected to work diligently to find a viable date and move the case forward as efficiently as possible under the circumstances.