Military cases are different from civilian cases in one obvious way: the people involved are frequently stationed far from the courtroom, sometimes deployed overseas or aboard ship, and sometimes in operational settings where travel is difficult or impossible. A witness whose testimony matters to an Article 32 preliminary hearing or a court-martial may be thousands of miles away. The military justice system anticipates this reality and provides ways to obtain testimony from remote or deployed witnesses without always requiring them to appear in person. Understanding what support exists helps an accused and the defense team plan how to secure the witnesses they need.
Remote testimony is expressly permitted at the preliminary hearing
At an Article 32 preliminary hearing, witnesses do not have to appear in person. The government may call witnesses relevant to the hearing officer’s determination in person, by telephone, by video teleconference, or by other means that provide a reasonable opportunity to question the witness and that allow the defense to cross-examine. This flexibility is built into the procedures that govern the hearing. It means that a witness who is deployed, at sea, or otherwise unavailable to travel can still participate. The form of the testimony is shaped by what is practicable. The preliminary hearing officer does not have authority to dictate the form a witness’s testimony must take, though the officer may suggest which form would be most helpful to the hearing.
The opportunity to question and cross-examine is preserved
The point of allowing remote testimony is to make witnesses reasonably available while preserving the integrity of the process. Whatever means is used, telephone, video teleconference, or similar technology, it must give a reasonable opportunity to question the witness and let the defense cross-examine. This protects the accused’s interest in testing the testimony even when the witness cannot be physically present. For the defense, this is significant: a deployed witness who could not be flown in for a hearing can still be questioned and challenged through a video or telephone connection, so the inability to travel does not silence a witness who matters to the case.
Logistical coordination behind remote testimony
Connecting a deployed witness to a hearing or trial takes coordination, and that coordination is part of the support the system provides. Arranging video teleconference links, securing a suitable time across time zones, ensuring the witness has access to communications equipment in a forward location, and confirming that both parties can hear and question the witness all require advance planning. The parties and the court work through these arrangements so that the connection functions when the testimony is needed. Where a witness is in an operational environment, scheduling must account for mission demands and the limits of available communications. The defense should raise the need for a remote witness early so that there is time to set up the link.
Securing witness availability and travel
Some witnesses will appear in person, and military cases include mechanisms to make that happen. Production of witnesses for a hearing or trial involves official requests and orders that arrange travel, and the question of whether a witness must be produced in person or may testify remotely turns on relevance, availability, and what is reasonably practicable. For an accused, the path to obtaining a witness begins with identifying the witness to counsel and explaining why the testimony is relevant. Counsel then pursues production, whether that means arranging travel for an in-person appearance or arranging a remote connection for a deployed witness. The choice depends on the stage of the case, the importance of the testimony, and the practical realities of where the witness is located.
Why early identification of witnesses matters
Because remote and deployed witnesses require setup, timing is everything. A witness aboard a deploying vessel or assigned to an overseas mission may be reachable for only limited windows, and arranging a video link or travel cannot be done at the last minute. The accused who tells counsel promptly about every witness who could help, and who explains what each witness would say and why it matters, gives the defense the runway to arrange the necessary support. Waiting until the eve of a hearing to raise a far-flung witness risks losing that testimony to logistical impossibility. Early, specific communication with counsel is the single most useful thing an accused can do to make sure a remote or deployed witness is actually heard.
What an accused and family should take away
The distances that define military life do not have to mean that a key witness goes unheard. The system allows testimony from remote and deployed witnesses through telephone, video teleconference, and similar means, while preserving the right to question and cross-examine. Behind each remote appearance is logistical coordination to arrange the connection or the travel, and that coordination depends on knowing about the witness in time to set it up. For a service member facing a hearing or a court-martial, the practical message is clear: tell counsel about every relevant witness as soon as possible, including those who are deployed or far from the court, so the defense can arrange the support needed to bring that testimony into the case.
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.