Yes. The Manual for Courts-Martial places real boundaries on what can be asked and examined during an Article 32 preliminary hearing. Those limits are set out in Rule for Courts-Martial 405, which implements Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Understanding these limits matters because the Article 32 hearing of today is a far narrower proceeding than the broad pretrial investigation it replaced.
From investigation to preliminary hearing
For decades Article 32 functioned as a wide-ranging pretrial investigation, sometimes resembling a discovery deposition where the defense could question witnesses at length. Amendments enacted through the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015 changed that. Congress converted the proceeding from an investigation into a preliminary hearing with a defined and limited purpose. The Manual for Courts-Martial was updated to reflect this change, and the result is that questioning is now tied to a fixed set of issues rather than open exploration of the case.
The four authorized purposes
Under the current rule, the preliminary hearing exists to determine a narrow group of questions. The hearing officer considers whether the charged specification states an offense, whether there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the charged offense, whether the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction over both the offense and the accused, and what disposition of the charges the hearing officer recommends. Every line of questioning is supposed to serve one of these purposes. Questions that do not bear on whether an offense is stated, on probable cause, on jurisdiction, or on an appropriate recommendation fall outside the scope the Manual authorizes.
How this limits witness examination
Because the proceeding is confined to those purposes, the hearing officer controls the examination of witnesses to keep it relevant. A witness appears only when the testimony is relevant to the limited issues and is not cumulative, and only when the witness is reasonably available. The defense no longer enjoys an open-ended right to call and cross-examine every witness on every topic. Questions aimed at developing trial strategy, locking witnesses into prior statements for later impeachment, or exploring matters that have nothing to do with probable cause can be curtailed. The hearing officer may limit or exclude questioning that strays from the authorized inquiry.
Relevance and reasonable form of evidence
The Manual also directs the hearing officer to consider relevant information in any reasonable form. This means the proceeding is not bound by the strict evidentiary contest of a trial. Sworn statements, reports, and other documents may substitute for live testimony in many situations. The practical effect on questioning is significant. Where the government can present its showing through documents, the occasion for live examination shrinks, and with it the range of questions that will actually be asked of witnesses in the room.
Protection of named victims
A further limit concerns named victims. A victim may decline to testify at the preliminary hearing, and that decision is respected. When a victim does not testify, the hearing officer cannot compel that testimony, and questioning of the victim simply does not occur at the hearing. This protection reflects the policy choices Congress built into the revised Article 32 and directly restricts the scope of what counsel may ask.
Submission of additional information
Although live questioning is constrained, the rule preserves an avenue for the parties and any named victim to submit additional information they consider relevant to the convening authority’s disposition decision. This is a written or documentary channel rather than a forum for live cross-examination, and it reinforces the design of the modern hearing, which favors a focused record over expansive in-person questioning.
What this means for the defense
Defense counsel sometimes hope to use the Article 32 hearing as a preview of the government’s case and a chance to test witnesses. The Manual’s limits temper that expectation. Counsel can still probe the existence of probable cause, challenge whether the specification states an offense, raise jurisdictional defects, and argue for a favorable disposition recommendation. What counsel cannot do is treat the hearing as unlimited discovery. The hearing officer is authorized, indeed expected, to keep questioning within the four purposes the rule defines.
That said, the limits are not a license to deny the accused a meaningful hearing. The rule still entitles the accused to be present, to be represented by counsel, to cross-examine witnesses who do testify, and to present relevant matters. The boundary is one of subject matter, not of basic fairness. Questions must connect to the authorized purposes, but within those purposes the defense retains a genuine opportunity to test the government’s showing.
Conclusion
The Manual for Courts-Martial does limit the scope of questions in Article 32 hearings, and the limits are deliberate. Rule for Courts-Martial 405 confines the proceeding to whether the specification states an offense, whether probable cause exists, whether jurisdiction is proper, and what disposition is appropriate. Witness testimony is restricted to relevant, non-cumulative matters from reasonably available witnesses, victims may decline to testify, and documentary submissions carry much of the load. Counsel who understand these boundaries can use the hearing effectively, while counsel who expect a wide-open investigation will find the modern rule far more confining than its predecessor.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.