Who Is Who in a Court-Martial: The Roles That Decide a Case
On this page
A court-martial distributes authority across more offices than a civilian criminal trial does, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice keeps them apart on purpose. The same statute that creates each role also names what that role may not do, and who may not hold two of them at once.
This page is the index. Each role gets what the Code says it is, who appoints or certifies it, and the limit written alongside it. The depth for each one lives on its own page; what this page owns is the map and the separations.
It does not evaluate anyone’s conduct in any case.
The separations the Code insists on
Before the roles, the pattern. Three articles disqualify a person from holding a second role in the same case, and reading them together shows the design.
Article 25(e)(2) bars a member who “is the accuser or a witness for the prosecution or has acted as preliminary hearing officer or as counsel in the same case.” Article 27(a)(2) bars a person who has served as a preliminary hearing officer, court member, military judge, military magistrate or appellate judge from later serving as trial counsel, and as defense counsel “unless expressly requested by the accused”; a second sentence bars switching between prosecution and defense in the same case, in either direction, with no waiver. Article 26(c)(2) bars the convening authority and its staff from rating the military judge.
Article 27 therefore contains one waivable bar and one absolute one. The accused may waive the role bar for their own counsel; nobody may waive the bar on switching sides.
The convening authority
The official who creates the court. Articles 22, 23 and 24 list who may convene each kind of court-martial, and the lists nest: anyone who may convene a general court-martial may convene the lesser forums.
The limit, and it is new. For covered offenses, Article 24a(c)(5) provides that a commander or convening authority “may not refer charges and specifications for a covered offense for trial by special or general court-martial.” The detail is in convening authority.
The special trial counsel
An office created by Article 24a and filled by a commissioned officer who is “a judge advocate who is qualified under section 806(a)(1)” and certified by the Judge Advocate General. That cross-reference is current as of the December 2025 amendment; the earlier standard asked only for bar membership, and the four conditions Article 6(a)(1) now imposes are set out on the page about the right to a military defense lawyer. A lead special trial counsel must be “in a grade no lower than O-7.”
The authority. Article 24a(c)(2)(A) gives “exclusive authority to determine if a reported offense is a covered offense”, and (c)(4) makes a decision to refer “binding on any applicable convening authority”.
The staff judge advocate
The commander’s lawyer. Article 6(c), the provision cited as Article 6(b) before the December 2025 redesignation, requires convening authorities to “communicate directly” with the staff judge advocate on military justice matters, and entitles that officer to communicate directly with counterparts and with the Judge Advocate General.
The gate. Article 34 forbids referral of a specification to a general court-martial unless the staff judge advocate advises in writing that the specification alleges an offense, that there is probable cause, and that a court-martial would have jurisdiction. See the staff judge advocate.
The military judge
Detailed to each general and special court-martial under Article 26, certified by the Judge Advocate General, and designated for detail by that same officer rather than by the command.
What the judge decides alone. Article 51(b): the judge “shall rule upon all questions of law and all interlocutory questions”, and such a ruling “is final and constitutes the ruling of the court”, with mental responsibility carved out.
What the judge decides that the panel used to. Under Article 25(d)(1), in a court-martial with a judge and members, the accused “shall be sentenced by the military judge” except in capital cases.
The members
The panel. Eligibility is tiered by status under Article 25: any commissioned officer on active duty may sit on any case; a warrant officer on any case except one trying a commissioned officer; an enlisted member only on the trial of another enlisted member.
What they do. They find guilt, by secret written ballot, with “at least three-fourths of the members present when the vote is taken” required to convict under Article 52(a)(3). The junior member counts the votes; the president checks the count.
How many. Article 29(b) requires the judge to impanel 12 members in a capital general court-martial, eight in a noncapital one, and four in a special court-martial. See how a court-martial panel is chosen.
Trial counsel
The prosecutor. Article 38(a): “The trial counsel of a general or special court-martial shall prosecute in the name of the United States, and shall, under the direction of the court, prepare the record of the proceedings.”
Two duties in one sentence. Prosecution, and preparation of the record under the court’s direction. Article 35(a) adds service of the referred charges on the accused. See the military prosecutor.
Defense counsel
Detailed under Article 27 to each general and special court-martial, certified as competent by the Judge Advocate General, and not certified by the command.
The accused’s options. Article 38(b) permits civilian counsel “if provided by him”, and military counsel of the accused’s own selection “if that counsel is reasonably available”. Where a civilian is retained, detailed or selected military counsel “shall act as associate counsel unless excused at the request of the accused.”
The ceiling. Article 38(b)(6): “The accused is not entitled to be represented by more than one military counsel.” See the right to a military defense lawyer.
The preliminary hearing officer
An office that exists only before referral to a general court-martial. Article 32(a)(1)(A) requires “an impartial hearing officer”, and (a)(2) limits the purpose of the hearing to a short list beginning with whether the specification alleges an offense and whether there is probable cause.
The disqualification that follows. Having acted as preliminary hearing officer bars a person from sitting as a member in the same case under Article 25(e)(2).
The accuser
Not an appointed office but a status with consequences. The person who prefers charges under Article 30 swears that the matters are true “to the best of the knowledge and belief of the signer”, and being the accuser disqualifies that person from sitting as a member under Article 25(e)(2).
Article 24a(c)(2)(A) adds a point that only makes sense against that background: for a special trial counsel, “[a]ny determination to prefer or refer charges shall not act to disqualify the special trial counsel as an accuser.”
What this page does not decide
Which individual holds any role in a case. These are positions; who occupies one is a fact.
Whether a separation was breached. The disqualifications are legal standards applied to records.
What any role holder will do. The Code describes authority, not its exercise.
Where to go from here
For the sequence these offices act in, see what happens before a court-martial, and for what happens once the court sits, inside a court-martial trial.
Sources
- 10 U.S.C. 826 · Article 26, Military judge · certification, designation, and the rating bar
- 10 U.S.C. 827 · Article 27, Detail of trial counsel and defense counsel · the detailing duty and the role disqualifications
- 10 U.S.C. 838 · Article 38, Duties of trial counsel and defense counsel · the prosecutor’s two duties and the accused’s three avenues
- 10 U.S.C. 852 · Article 52, Votes required for conviction · the three-fourths threshold
- 10 U.S.C. chapter 47 · the Code in full · Articles 6, 22 to 25, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 51, quoted above
What this page did not open. The Manual for Courts-Martial was not opened. Service regulations on detailing judges and counsel were 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.