When more than one service member is suspected of taking part in the same incident, a natural question is whether they can be processed together. Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires a preliminary hearing before charges may be referred to a general court-martial, and that requirement applies to each accused. Whether two or more accused can share a single Article 32 hearing depends on how the charges are structured and on the practical and fairness considerations that govern joint and common proceedings in the military justice system.
What an Article 32 hearing is for
Article 32, as implemented by Rule for Courts-Martial 405, is a preliminary hearing conducted by a preliminary hearing officer before a case can go to a general court-martial. Its scope is limited. The hearing officer examines the evidence and witnesses to determine whether each specification states an offense, whether there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the charged offenses, whether the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction over the offense and the accused, and what disposition the officer recommends. It is not a trial, and it is not designed to resolve guilt.
Because the inquiry is keyed to each specification and to whether the accused committed it, the hearing must address the charges against a particular person. When multiple people are charged, the question becomes whether those charges can sensibly be examined in one proceeding.
Joint, common, and consolidated proceedings
Military practice recognizes more than one way to bring multiple accused together. In a joint offense, two or more accused are charged with committing the same offense together, such as participating in the same act as principals. In a common trial, separate offenses by different accused are tried in a single proceeding for efficiency, typically because they arise from the same incident or are closely related.
The Rules for Courts-Martial contemplate that charges against different accused arising from related conduct may be handled together. RCM 601 authorizes referral of offenses to a single court-martial, and the discussion accompanying the rules reflects a general preference that known related charges be addressed together rather than piecemeal. When the underlying charges can properly be joined, there is no categorical bar to conducting a single Article 32 preliminary hearing that covers the accused who are charged in that joined manner. A combined hearing can be efficient, especially where the witnesses and evidence overlap heavily, which is common when several members are accused of involvement in one event.
The limits and the fairness concerns
The possibility of a combined hearing does not mean it is always appropriate. The military justice system places a strong emphasis on each accused’s individual rights, and several considerations can require separating the proceedings.
A central concern is conflict among the accused. If one accused makes a statement that implicates a co-accused, or if their defenses are mutually antagonistic, combining their hearings can prejudice one or more of them. At the trial stage, RCM 906 allows a military judge to order severance of multiple accused when an accused or the government would be prejudiced by a joint or common trial, and severance is required whenever an accused faces charges unrelated to those charged against a co-accused. The same fairness logic informs how preliminary matters are handled. A preliminary hearing officer and the convening authority must be attentive to whether a combined hearing would unfairly entangle one accused’s case with another’s.
Another consideration is each accused’s right to participate. At an Article 32 hearing, each accused is entitled to be represented, to be present, to cross-examine available witnesses, and to present matters. Combining accused must not dilute those individual rights. If a combined format would impair one accused’s ability to question a witness or to present a defense theory that conflicts with a co-accused’s interests, separate hearings are the better course.
How the decision is made
The structure of the charges drives the analysis. If the accused are properly charged jointly or their offenses are genuinely common to a single incident, the convening authority may direct a combined preliminary hearing, and the preliminary hearing officer conducts it with attention to each accused’s rights. If the charges are not properly related, or if combining them would create prejudice or conflict, the cases should be handled separately, with each accused receiving an individual Article 32 hearing keyed to the specifications against that person.
Even where a combined hearing begins, problems can surface that warrant separating the cases. The flexibility of the system allows the proceedings to be split when it becomes clear that a unified hearing cannot fairly serve every accused.
Practical implications for the accused
For a service member who is one of several accused, the format of the preliminary hearing carries real consequences. A combined hearing can expose the accused to evidence and arguments aimed primarily at a co-accused, and statements by a co-accused may surface in ways that affect the probable cause picture. On the other hand, a combined hearing also lets the defense observe the entire evidentiary landscape at once and identify where the government’s theory depends on linking the accused together.
Because the choice between a combined and a separate hearing can shape strategy and outcomes, an accused who learns that the government intends to proceed jointly should raise any conflict or prejudice concerns early. A request to sever the preliminary proceedings, supported by a concrete showing of how a combined hearing would harm the accused, gives the convening authority and the hearing officer a basis to reconsider the format.
Bottom line
Multiple accused can share an Article 32 preliminary hearing when their charges are properly joined as a joint offense or as a common matter arising from the same incident, and doing so can be efficient when the evidence overlaps. But the answer is not automatic. The system protects each accused’s individual rights to representation, presence, cross-examination, and the presentation of a defense, and it will require separate hearings where combining the accused would create conflict or prejudice. Any service member facing a joint or common proceeding should consult qualified defense counsel to assess whether a combined Article 32 hearing serves or harms their interests.
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.