Yes. Video and digital evidence can be considered during an Article 32 preliminary hearing, but the way it is reviewed differs sharply from a trial. The Article 32 hearing is a limited, probable-cause proceeding, and the rules governing what the hearing officer sees, how the evidence comes in, and what each side can do with it reflect that limited purpose. Knowing those boundaries helps explain why a hearing officer may watch a video clip or read a phone extraction yet never resolve whether that evidence is authentic or admissible at trial.
The purpose of the Article 32 hearing shapes everything
Article 32, UCMJ, requires a preliminary hearing before charges can be referred to a general court-martial. A preliminary hearing officer, who is a judge advocate when reasonably available, is appointed to determine whether there is probable cause to believe an offense was committed and that the accused committed it, to consider whether the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction, and to recommend a disposition. Congress narrowed the hearing in reforms that took effect in 2014, removing broad discovery as a purpose and confining the inquiry largely to probable cause. That narrowing is the backdrop for how digital evidence is handled.
Because the hearing tests probable cause rather than guilt, the Military Rules of Evidence generally do not apply, except for the rules on privileges and the protections governing certain sexual-offense evidence. This means the hearing officer can consider material that would face significant admissibility hurdles at trial, including documents, reports, summaries, and recordings, without first resolving foundational disputes.
How video and digital evidence is presented
Video footage, surveillance recordings, body-camera files, text-message threads, social-media content, and forensic extractions from phones or computers can all be put before the preliminary hearing officer. They typically arrive in the form the government chooses to present, which may be the recording itself, a still image, a transcript, or an investigator’s summary of what the digital evidence shows. Because the rules of evidence do not generally apply, the government is not required to call a forensic examiner to authenticate a phone download or to lay a trial-quality foundation for a video before the hearing officer may consider it.
The hearing officer evaluates this material for what it is worth in deciding probable cause. A clear video that appears to depict the charged conduct can strongly support a probable-cause finding, while an ambiguous clip or an unverified screenshot may carry little weight. The officer is making a practical, common-sense assessment, not a definitive ruling on whether the digital evidence is genuine, complete, or lawfully obtained.
What the defense can and cannot do with it
The accused has important participation rights at the hearing. The defense may be present, may be represented by counsel, may cross-examine witnesses who actually testify, and may present matters in defense and mitigation that are relevant to the limited scope of the hearing. If a witness with knowledge of the digital evidence testifies, the defense can question that witness about how the video was captured, whether it has been edited, or how a device extraction was performed.
The limits, however, are real. The Article 32 hearing is not a discovery tool, so the defense cannot use it to compel the government to produce the full underlying digital files, complete forensic images, or metadata simply to examine them. Production of evidence and witnesses at the hearing is governed by relevance and necessity to the hearing’s limited purpose, and the hearing officer can decline to order production of material that goes beyond probable cause. Genuine challenges to authenticity, chain of custody, completeness, and lawful seizure of digital evidence are reserved for litigation before the military judge at trial through suppression motions and evidentiary objections.
Authentication and admissibility come later
A central point of confusion is the difference between considering evidence and admitting it. At trial, video and digital evidence must be authenticated, meaning the proponent must show it is what it claims to be, and it must survive objections under the Military Rules of Evidence, including hearsay, best-evidence, and reliability concerns, along with any motion to suppress unlawfully obtained data. None of that is decided at the Article 32 hearing. The hearing officer’s consideration of a recording does not establish that it will be admissible, and it does not waive the defense’s right to contest it later. Conversely, the fact that digital evidence helped support a probable-cause recommendation does not bind the military judge at trial.
Practical guidance
For the defense, the Article 32 hearing is a chance to observe what digital evidence the government is leaning on, to probe any testifying witness about its origin, and to begin building the foundation for later authentication and suppression challenges, without expecting to win those challenges at this stage. Counsel should preserve concerns on the record and plan to litigate them through pretrial motions before the military judge. For the government, presenting clear digital evidence at the hearing can support referral, but it does not relieve the prosecution of the burden of authenticating that evidence and overcoming admissibility objections when the case reaches trial.
Bottom line
Video and digital evidence can be reviewed during the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and because the Military Rules of Evidence generally do not apply there, the hearing officer may consider it in the form the government offers, including summaries, without trial-quality authentication. But the review is for probable cause only. The hearing is not a discovery mechanism, the defense cannot use it to force production of full forensic data, and questions of authenticity, completeness, and lawful seizure are decided later by the military judge at trial. Consideration at the hearing is not admission, and it waives nothing.
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.