Joint Article 32 hearings for multiple accused are permissible when charges arise from same transactions or events, potentially increasing efficiency while creating complex strategic dynamics between co-accused interests. Rule for Courts-Martial 405 allows joint proceedings unless severance appears necessary for fairness, with each accused retaining individual rights to counsel, confrontation, and evidence presentation. PHOs must manage potentially conflicting defense strategies while ensuring each accused receives fair preliminary examination.
Severance grounds include mutually antagonistic defenses where accuseds blame each other, spillover prejudice from co-accused’s worse conduct or evidence, classified information accessible to only certain accused, or confrontation issues if one accused’s statement implicates others. Timing conflicts between accuseds ready for hearings versus those needing preparation may force severance. Each accused must individually consent to joint proceedings after consultation with counsel.
Strategic considerations vary by case dynamics – joint hearings may reveal co-accused strategies affecting trial preparation, allow coordinated attacks on government witnesses, create unified fronts challenging common evidence, or risk association with more culpable co-accused. Information learned may affect plea negotiations or cooperation decisions. Counsel must balance immediate tactical advantages against long-term trial implications of revealed strategies.
Practical management requires extended hearing times accommodating multiple examination opportunities, careful record keeping distinguishing objections and arguments, and clear PHO findings individualized to each accused. Conflicts between defense counsel may emerge requiring judicial management. The efficiency gains must outweigh fairness concerns and practical complications. Joint preliminary hearings occur less frequently than joint trials given strategic sensitivities at early proceedings.