Article 32 hearings must be rescheduled when defense demonstrates inadequate preparation time would prejudice the accused’s ability to meaningfully participate. RCM 405 requires “reasonable time” for preparation, interpreted liberally given the hearing’s importance. Defense requests for continuances based on incomplete discovery, unavailable witnesses, or insufficient investigation time generally receive approval.
Factors supporting rescheduling include case complexity requiring extensive review, recent counsel assignment preventing adequate preparation, or ongoing investigations producing new evidence. Volume of digital evidence increasingly justifies delay requests. Expert consultation needs or forensic testing pendency provide strong grounds. Government opposition carries little weight unless demonstrating prejudice beyond mere inconvenience.
Time limitations exist preventing indefinite delays, with reasonableness measured against case specifics. Serial postponement requests require increasing justification. Deployment schedules or witness availability may create scheduling imperatives. Speedy trial considerations under RCM 707 continue running unless delays are excludable for defense requests.
PHOs balance meaningful defense opportunity against prompt case progression. Documentation should reflect specific preparation impediments rather than general assertions. Government readiness doesn’t override defense preparation needs given different burdens and resources. The standard ensures Article 32 hearings fulfill their investigative purpose through prepared adversarial testing rather than rushed proceedings prejudicing eventual disposition decisions.