The Military Rules of Evidence: What a Court-Martial Will and Will Not Hear
On this page
- The delegation, and the four words that matter
- What the Code excludes itself
- What the Code guarantees on access to evidence
- Who decides admissibility, and who does not
- One rule this page can now quote, and why it is this one
- What this page cannot contain, and why
- What this page does not decide
- Where to go from here
- Sources
The Military Rules of Evidence are cited as M.R.E. followed by a number. They are the evidentiary part of the Manual for Courts-Martial, they are written by the President rather than by Congress, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice tells you in one clause what they are supposed to look like.
This page sets out where the rules come from, the benchmark the Code sets for them, and the exclusions the Code itself imposes, which no rule can undo. It does not set out any evidentiary rule, because we did not open the Manual. That is stated here, at the section that would otherwise carry the rules, and at the foot of the page.
It does not describe how evidence is admitted or excluded in practice, and it gives no advice.
The delegation, and the four words that matter
“(a) Pretrial, trial, and post-trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts-martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not, except as provided in chapter 47A of this title, be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter.”
Source: 10 U.S.C. 836 (Article 36), subsection (a).
Two phrases in that sentence create the Military Rules of Evidence.
“Including modes of proof.” This is what brings evidence inside a delegation otherwise about procedure. Without those four words the rules of evidence would need their own authority.
“The rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts.” This is the benchmark. The military rules are directed at the federal civilian rules of evidence, “so far as he considers practicable”, which is a standard with an escape rather than a requirement of identity.
And the ceiling applies here as everywhere: a rule “may not … be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter.”
What the Code excludes itself
Three exclusions are statutory. A rule cannot narrow them, and they are the part of the evidentiary picture this page can give in full.
Statements obtained in violation of Article 31, and statements obtained by coercion.
“(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.”
Source: 10 U.S.C. 831 (Article 31), subsection (d).
Read the two routes separately. A statement may be excluded because the article’s warning requirement was breached, or because coercion, unlawful influence or unlawful inducement was used, and the second route does not depend on the first. The first route carries a limitation the statute does not state: case law confines the warning duty to questioning in an official capacity, and this site did not open that case law. The article itself is set out in Article 31 rights.
Compelled immaterial and degrading material. Article 31(c) prohibits compelling a person to make a statement or produce evidence before a military tribunal where it “is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.” Both conditions must hold.
Nothing at all from a mandatory-death-penalty guilty plea. Article 45(b) provides that a guilty plea “may not be received to any charge or specification alleging an offense for which the death penalty is mandatory.”
What the Code guarantees on access to evidence
Exclusion is one half; getting evidence is the other, and the Code states the principle.
“(a) Opportunity To Obtain Witnesses and Other Evidence.—In a case referred for trial by court-martial, the trial counsel, the defense counsel, and the court-martial shall have equal opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence in accordance with such regulations as the President may prescribe.”
Source: 10 U.S.C. 846 (Article 46), subsection (a).
The statute then constrains the delegated mechanics. Process issued under the article “shall be similar to that which courts of the United States having criminal jurisdiction may issue” and “shall run to any part of the United States and to the Commonwealths and possessions of the United States.” Subpoenas may compel a witness to appear before a court-martial, at a deposition under Article 49, or as otherwise authorised, and may compel production of evidence for those proceedings and for an investigation of an offense.
Who decides admissibility, and who does not
Article 51(b) puts every evidentiary ruling with the judge: the military judge “shall rule upon all questions of law and all interlocutory questions arising during the proceedings”, and the ruling “is final and constitutes the ruling of the court.” The members do not vote on admissibility.
Article 39(a)(1) and (a)(2) then put that work in a session without the members present, which is why an evidentiary dispute is resolved before the panel hears the evidence rather than in front of it. The motions practice is in pretrial motions.
One rule this page can now quote, and why it is this one
The rules themselves are in the Manual, which this page did not open. But a presidential order amending the Manual is open, and it carries the current text of the rules it changed. One of them belongs on a page about what a court-martial will and will not hear.
“(a) General Rule. A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing a confidential communication, including records of such communications, made between the patient and a psychotherapist or an assistant to the psychotherapist, in a case arising under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if such communication was made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s mental or emotional condition.”
Source: Executive Order 14130, 20 December 2024, Annex, amending the Manual for Courts-Martial. This is the current text of Mil. R. Evid. 513(a); the rest of Rule 513, including its exceptions, was not opened.
Four elements are in that sentence and each one is a limit. The holder is the patient, not the therapist. The privilege covers a confidential communication and, expressly, records of one. It applies in a case arising under the Code. And the communication must have been made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition, and that purpose requirement is where the element has to be established rather than assumed.
What this does not tell you is when the privilege yields. Rule 513 continues past subsection (a) with exceptions, and those were not opened. A privilege stated without its exceptions is half a rule, and this page says so rather than implying the other half does not exist.
What this page cannot contain, and why
Relevance. Character evidence. Hearsay and its exceptions. Privileges. Confessions, searches, and evidence in sexual-offense cases. Each of those is a numbered rule with a text, and the rules are what this title names.
None of that is on this page. The Manual for Courts-Martial was not opened. Access was attempted on 19 September 2026 at jsc.defense.gov twice, at media.defense.gov and at tjaglcspublic.army.mil, and each returned an HTTP 403 refusal. No Military Rule of Evidence is quoted, numbered or paraphrased anywhere on this page.
The title promises what a court-martial will and will not hear. What this page delivers is the statutory part of that answer: the three exclusions the Code imposes, the access guarantee it gives, and the benchmark it sets for everything else. The rest is in the Manual, and nothing here substitutes for it.
What this page does not decide
Whether any item of evidence is admissible. That is a ruling on a record under rules this page did not open.
Whether a statement can be suppressed. Article 31(d) states a rule; applying it requires evidence about how the statement was obtained.
How closely the military rules track the federal civilian rules. Article 36(a) sets the benchmark and the practicability escape; measuring the result requires both rulebooks.
Where to go from here
The document these rules sit inside is in the Manual for Courts-Martial, and its procedural half in the rules for courts-martial. For where evidentiary rulings fall in the trial, see inside a court-martial trial.
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. 836 · Article 36, President may prescribe rules · the “modes of proof” clause, the district-court benchmark and the consistency ceiling
- 10 U.S.C. 831 · Article 31 · the statutory exclusion in subsection (d) and the compulsion prohibition in (c)
- 10 U.S.C. 846 · Article 46, Opportunity to obtain witnesses and other evidence · equal opportunity, and the limits on delegated process
- 10 U.S.C. 851 · Article 51, Voting and rulings · the judge’s exclusive authority over questions of law
- 10 U.S.C. chapter 47 · the Code in full · Articles 39, 45 and 49, referred to above
What this page did not open, stated plainly because the title turns on it. The Manual for Courts-Martial, and therefore every Military Rule of Evidence, was not opened. Four access routes were tried on 19 September 2026 and each was refused. The Federal Rules of Evidence, the benchmark named in Article 36(a), were also not opened. No court decision was opened.
Checked on 19 September 2026, and checked for currency as well as for accuracy. Every statutory provision cited on this page was traced to the current United States Code: where a provision has not been amended since the 2023 edition, that edition’s text is the current text and its amendment record was read to confirm it; where a provision was amended by Pub. L. 118–159 (23 December 2024) or Pub. L. 119–60 (18 December 2025), the current text is quoted above and the amending Act is named beside it. The two Acts’ own texts were read to establish the complete list of provisions in this chapter that they changed. This was done through the Cornell mirror of the Code and through the Acts as published by the Government Publishing Office; the House preliminary Code could not be reached from here, so no third source confirms it. No independent expert review has taken place yet, and this page says so rather than implying one.