Scheduling orders for Article 32 preliminary hearings are typically issued by the Preliminary Hearing Officer (PHO) after consultation with both the government’s trial counsel and the defense counsel. While there is no formal, court-like docketing system for these hearings, the process is managed through official correspondence and coordination among the parties.
Once the PHO is appointed, they will usually contact both legal teams to determine their availability and the anticipated length of the hearing. Based on this information, the PHO will set a date, time, and location for the proceeding. This is often communicated through an official memorandum or email that serves as the de facto scheduling order. This order will also typically set deadlines for providing witness lists and exchanging evidence.
Enforcement of the schedule relies largely on the professional responsibility of the counsel and the authority of the PHO. If a party fails to comply with a deadline or seeks a delay without good cause, the PHO can admonish them. The PHO has the authority to grant or deny requests for continuances. For military witnesses, their attendance can be compelled through their chain of command. For civilian witnesses, the PHO can issue subpoenas to compel their attendance on the scheduled date.
If a party unreasonably delays the proceedings, the opposing counsel can raise the issue with the PHO and, if necessary, with the convening authority. While the PHO lacks the contempt power of a military judge, a persistent failure to comply with scheduling directives could be viewed as misconduct. Ultimately, the system relies on a combination of professional cooperation and the PHO’s administrative authority to keep the process moving forward.