Who Is Who in a Court-Martial: The Roles That Decide a Case

A court-martial gathers a dozen different people in one room, and a service member trying to understand what is happening to them quickly runs into a problem no single official will solve: which of these people actually controls which decision. The officer who decided to send the case forward is not the lawyer who will argue it. The lawyer arguing for the government does not decide the sentence. The person in the robe rules on the law but, in a panel case, does not vote on guilt. Knowing the cast is not enough; the question that matters is who holds power over what.

This guide is a map of those roles and the specific decisions each one owns. It is a single-sentence introduction to each participant and a pointer to where that participant is explained in depth, rather than a re-explanation of all of them in one place. The aim is the one thing the Manual for Courts-Martial never assembles in a single view: a plain answer to “who decides this?”

The one question that organizes everyone: who decides what?

Most confusion about a court-martial comes from assuming the roles work like a civilian criminal case, where a prosecutor charges, a judge presides, and a jury decides. The military system splits these functions differently, and a 2023 reform moved one of the most important decisions out of the chain of command entirely. The table below is the spine of this guide. Each row names a participant, the decision that participant actually controls, and the authority that grants the power.

Role	The decision this role controls	Source of authority
Convening authority	Whether a non-covered case goes to court-martial, which level, and who sits on the panel	UCMJ Articles 22 to 25
Special Trial Counsel	Whether to prosecute a "covered offense" (serious crimes); this decision is now exclusive and independent of the commander	UCMJ Article 24a (effective 27 December 2023)
Military judge	Rulings on law, admissibility, and motions; the sentence in most non-capital cases	UCMJ Articles 26, 51, 56
Panel members	The verdict in a member trial: guilt by a three-fourths vote	UCMJ Articles 25, 52
Trial counsel	How the government presents and argues its case at trial	UCMJ Article 27
Defense counsel	How the accused is represented and what strategy the defense pursues	UCMJ Article 27 and Sixth Amendment
Article 32 preliminary hearing officer	A non-binding recommendation on probable cause before a general court-martial	UCMJ Article 32, RCM 405
Staff judge advocate	Legal advice to the commander; no decisional power over the case itself	UCMJ Articles 6, 60a, 1044
Accused	Whether to plead guilty, testify, request a forum, and accept or reject a plea agreement	UCMJ Articles 38, 45, 53a

The rest of this guide walks down that table one role at a time, in one or two sentences each, and points to the dedicated discussion of the roles that carry their own depth.

The deciders

Convening authority. The convening authority is the commander who refers a case to a particular level of court-martial and, under Article 25, personally selects the members who will sit on the panel. This power was significant for most of the system’s history, but a 2023 reform stripped the commander of the charging decision for the most serious offenses, a shift covered in the dedicated discussion of the convening authority’s role and what it can no longer do.

Special Trial Counsel. Effective in late December 2023, an independent Special Trial Counsel, not the commander, holds exclusive authority to decide whether to prosecute a defined set of “covered offenses,” which include sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, domestic violence, and child pornography offenses. The point of the office is independence: under Article 24a the lead Special Trial Counsel reports to the Service Secretary rather than to the Judge Advocate General or to any operational commander, so that the choice to prosecute these crimes sits outside the accused’s chain of command. The mechanics of this office and the line between covered and non-covered offenses are developed in the discussion of the military prosecutor and its limits.

Military judge. The military judge presides over the trial, rules on every question of law and evidence, and, for non-capital offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, imposes the sentence even when members decide guilt. A military judge is a commissioned officer and certified attorney detailed by the Judge Advocate General under Article 26, and a deliberate structural rule keeps the judge independent: neither the convening authority nor that commander’s staff may write or review a fitness report on the judge’s work as a judge. The judge’s authority during the trial itself is examined in the walkthrough of a court-martial from opening statements to verdict.

Panel members. In a member trial, the panel decides guilt, and unlike a civilian jury its size is fixed and its members are chosen by the convening authority rather than drawn at random from the community. A general court-martial panel seats eight members, or twelve in a capital case, and a special court-martial seats four; conviction requires a three-fourths vote rather than unanimity, except that a death sentence requires a unanimous finding and a unanimous vote. How members are screened, challenged, and seated is the subject of the discussion of voir dire and member selection.

The advocates

Trial counsel. Trial counsel is the military prosecutor who presents the government’s evidence and argues for conviction at trial, but trial counsel does not decide who gets prosecuted; for ordinary offenses that referral comes from the convening authority, and for covered offenses it now comes from the Special Trial Counsel. What trial counsel may and may not do, and how that role differs from a civilian district attorney, is set out in the dedicated discussion of the military prosecutor.

Defense counsel. Every accused is entitled to a detailed military defense counsel at no cost, may also request a specific military lawyer by name if that lawyer is reasonably available, and may retain a civilian attorney at personal expense. The three layers of military defense representation, and how they fit together, are the subject of the dedicated discussion of the right to a military defense lawyer.

The advisers and gatekeepers

Article 32 preliminary hearing officer. Before a case may go to a general court-martial, an Article 32 preliminary hearing officer, ordinarily a judge advocate, reviews whether probable cause exists and whether the charges are in the proper form, then makes a recommendation to the convening authority. That recommendation is advisory rather than binding; the officer screens the case but does not decide it, and the convening authority remains free to weigh the recommendation against other factors.

Staff judge advocate. The staff judge advocate is the commander’s lawyer, the legal adviser who counsels the convening authority on disposition and on the post-trial steps that remain after the 2019 reforms, but the staff judge advocate holds no decisional power over the case and does not prosecute it. The boundaries of this advisory role, and why keeping advice separate from prosecution matters, are developed in the dedicated discussion of the staff judge advocate.

The accused. The accused is not a passive subject of the proceeding but the holder of a set of decisions no one else can make: whether to plead guilty or not guilty, whether to testify, whether to request trial by military judge alone, and whether to enter a plea agreement under Article 53a. These choices belong to the accused, exercised with the advice of counsel, and they shape the case as much as any ruling from the bench.

Where the lines actually fall

Three boundaries do most of the work of explaining how a court-martial functions, and each one is a separation that the civilian system draws differently or not at all.

The first is the line between charging and judging. The convening authority and the Special Trial Counsel decide whether a case proceeds; the military judge and the panel decide what happens to it. A military judge detailed under Article 26 cannot have a performance report written by the commander whose case is on trial, which is the structural guarantee that the person ruling on the law is not answering to the person who brought the charges.

The second is the line, new since late 2023, between covered and non-covered offenses. For non-covered offenses the commander still refers the case. For covered offenses, the most serious crimes, an independent Special Trial Counsel makes a binding decision to prosecute, and that prosecutor answers to the Service Secretary rather than to the chain of command. The same courtroom can therefore reach trial by two different routes depending on the offense charged.

The third is the line between advice and decision. The staff judge advocate advises but does not decide; the Article 32 hearing officer recommends but does not bind. Both shape outcomes without controlling them, and mistaking either for a decision-maker is a common source of confusion about who actually moved a case forward.

Frequently asked questions

Who decides guilt in a court-martial, the judge or the panel?

It depends on the forum the accused chooses. In a member trial, the panel decides guilt, and a general court-martial requires a three-fourths vote of its eight members to convict. If the accused requests trial by military judge alone, the judge decides guilt instead. This forum choice is one of the decisions that belongs to the accused.

Does the commander still decide who gets prosecuted?

For ordinary offenses, the convening authority still refers the case to court-martial. For “covered offenses,” the serious crimes defined by statute, the charging decision moved in late December 2023 to an independent Special Trial Counsel who reports to the Service Secretary, not to the commander. The commander no longer controls whether those cases are prosecuted.

Who imposes the sentence?

For non-capital offenses committed on or after 27 December 2023, the military judge imposes the sentence even when a panel decided guilt, a change from the older practice in which members sentenced. In a capital case, the members decide the sentence, and a death sentence requires a unanimous vote.

Is the military judge truly independent of the command?

The structure is built to protect that independence. The judge is a certified attorney detailed by the Judge Advocate General under Article 26, and the convening authority and that commander’s staff are barred from writing or reviewing any fitness report on the judge’s performance as a judge. The judge rules on the law without answering to the official who referred the case.

What does the staff judge advocate decide?

Nothing about the case directly. The staff judge advocate advises the commander on legal questions, including disposition and the limited post-trial actions that remain after the 2019 reforms, but does not prosecute, does not preside, and does not vote. The role is advisory.

Sources and Authorities

• Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. ch. 47: Article 22 to 25 (convening authorities and member selection), Article 24a (special trial counsel), Article 26 (military judge), Article 27 (trial and defense counsel), Article 32 (preliminary hearing), Article 38 (defense rights), Article 45 (pleas), Article 52 (votes required), Article 53a (plea agreements), Article 56 (sentencing), Article 60a (limited post-trial authority), Article 6 and Article 1044 (staff judge advocate and legal assistance).
• Rules for Courts-Martial, Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.): RCM 405 (Article 32 preliminary hearing).
• Office of Special Trial Counsel materials, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, on the authority and reporting line of special trial counsel for covered offenses.
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces digest, military justice personnel (court members and convening authority); Legal Information Institute, 10 U.S.C. 826 and 832.

Disclaimer

This article maps the participants in a court-martial and the decisions each one controls under current military law as of 2026. It describes how the roles are structured and is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not substitute for guidance from a qualified military defense attorney about any specific case. Roles, authorities, and effective dates can change as the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts-Martial are amended, and the allocation of authority for covered offenses in particular reflects reforms that took effect in late 2023.