Court-martial proceedings are not informal conversations that vanish once the courtroom empties. They are part of a formal criminal process, and the military justice system depends on having an accurate account of what happened so the case can be reviewed later. So when a service member asks whether a hearing can be recorded or transcribed for later use, the short answer is yes. Recording the proceedings is not just permitted; for many sessions it is expected, and a written transcript is often required by rule before the case can be reviewed on appeal.
Why a record is created in the first place
A court-martial produces a record of trial. That record is the official account of the proceeding, and it serves several purposes at once. It allows the convening authority and the appellate courts to see exactly what was charged, what evidence was admitted, what rulings the military judge made, and what sentence was adjudged. It also protects the accused, because an appellate court cannot meaningfully review a conviction or sentence without a reliable account of what occurred below. Because so much rides on accuracy, the proceedings are captured as they happen rather than reconstructed from memory afterward.
Recording the proceedings
To build that record, the sessions of a court-martial are recorded. This includes the open sessions where evidence is presented and, importantly, the sessions held under Article 39(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, where the military judge handles matters such as arraignment, motions, the guilty-plea inquiry, and other legal questions that the judge resolves on the record. Practitioners are routinely cautioned that, because of the possibility that a verbatim transcript will later be needed, everything should be recorded, including sidebar conferences, the arguments of counsel, and the military judge’s rulings and instructions. The safer practice is to record more rather than less, because anything that is not captured cannot later be transcribed.
When a verbatim transcript is required
Recording the proceeding and transcribing it are related but distinct steps. A recording is the raw capture; a transcript is the written version. Military law distinguishes between a verbatim transcript, which sets out the proceedings word for word, and a summarized record, which condenses what happened.
The level of transcription that is required generally tracks the severity of the sentence. When the sentence reaches certain thresholds, a verbatim transcript becomes mandatory. This includes situations where confinement exceeds six months, where forfeiture of pay is at a level or duration beyond what a special court-martial could otherwise impose, or where a bad-conduct discharge has been adjudged. A verbatim transcript in this sense is comprehensive: it is meant to include the full proceedings, such as sidebar conferences, the arguments of counsel, and the rulings and instructions given by the military judge. In cases that do not reach those thresholds, a summarized record may be sufficient.
How the record is used later
Once prepared, the transcript and the rest of the record of trial are used at later stages of the case. They support review by the convening authority and, where the case qualifies for appellate review, by the service Court of Criminal Appeals and ultimately, if the case goes that far, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Counsel rely on the transcript to identify and argue errors. The appellate courts rely on it to test whether the rulings below were correct and whether the trial was fair. In short, the record made during the hearing becomes the lens through which everyone who reviews the case sees what happened.
What happens when the record is deficient
Because the record matters so much, the rules also address what happens when it is incomplete or defective. If a recording fails or part of the proceeding cannot be transcribed, the gap can create real problems for the case. The 2019 revisions to the Rules for Courts-Martial gave the military judge a tool to address this. When a defective or incomplete record is raised by motion or on appeal, the rules allow the military judge to cure the problem by declaring a mistrial as to the affected specifications. That remedy underscores why thorough recording is treated as essential: a missing portion of the record can unravel part of the result.
Practical takeaways for a service member
Several practical points follow. First, a service member should assume that what is said on the record at a court-martial is being captured and may be transcribed and reviewed later, so statements made in the courtroom carry lasting weight. Second, whether a full verbatim transcript will be produced depends largely on the sentence, with more serious outcomes triggering the verbatim requirement. Third, if a recording problem or a gap in the transcript appears, that is a matter to raise, because the rules provide a mechanism to address an incomplete record. Finally, because the record drives appellate review, anyone with concerns about how a proceeding was captured should raise those concerns with qualified military defense or appellate counsel.
Conclusion
A court-martial hearing can be, and generally is, recorded, and it is often transcribed for later use. Recording is the routine practice across the sessions of a court-martial, including Article 39(a) sessions, and a verbatim written transcript becomes mandatory once the sentence crosses certain thresholds tied to confinement, forfeitures, or a punitive discharge. That record then serves the convening authority and the appellate courts as the authoritative account of the proceeding. Because an incomplete record can jeopardize part of a case, the system takes both recording and transcription seriously, and so should anyone whose case will depend on what that record shows.
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.