ARTICLE 32 HEARINGS

DEDICATED DEFENSE FOR MILITARY CRIMES

ARTICLE 32 HEARINGS: YOUR FIRST REAL FIGHT BEGINS HERE
Don’t Mistake This for Procedure. It’s Strategy.

When you’re facing serious criminal charges in the military, the trial doesn’t begin with the courtroom. It begins here. Article 32(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice mandates that no general court-martial may proceed without a preliminary hearing. This step isn’t optional, and it’s not ceremonial. It’s where the prosecution lays out probable cause. And it’s where your defense begins shaping the case before formal charges ever reach a judge.

WHAT IS AN ARTICLE 32 HEARING?

Legally, it’s an investigative hearing required before any charge can be referred to a general court-martial. But in practice, it’s the first battleground. A preliminary hearing officer (PHO), usually a judge advocate, is assigned to examine the case. Their role is to determine whether there's sufficient probable cause to support each charge. This officer is not a prosecutor. Nor are they a defense ally. Their job is to weigh the evidence, review testimony, and submit a written recommendation to the convening authority, the commander who ultimately decides whether the case proceeds.

The PHO’s report addresses not only whether probable cause exists, but also procedural matters, evidentiary flaws, and recommendations about charge modification or dismissal. While this report is not binding, commanders take it seriously. Especially when it’s been shaped by an assertive and well-prepared defense.

WHAT RIGHTS DO YOU HAVE DURING THIS HEARING?

Many. You have the right to attend the hearing. You have the right to be represented by counsel. You can present evidence. Call witnesses. Cross-examine the government’s witnesses. And most importantly, you can preserve issues for later suppression or dismissal motions.

Under the Manual for Courts-Martial, these rights are not symbolic. They are enforceable. Your attorney can object to improper evidence, force disclosure of investigative materials, and expose procedural gaps that may later serve as grounds for exclusion.

In short, this is not the time to let it play out. It’s the time to dig in.

WHAT MAKES THIS DIFFERENT FROM A CIVILIAN GRAND JURY?

The comparison comes up often, and the difference is enormous. A civilian grand jury is secret, one-sided, and the defendant isn’t present. The defendant can’t challenge anything. The prosecution controls what’s said, what’s withheld, and how the story is told.

In an Article 32 hearing, that story has to stand up to scrutiny. You are there. Your lawyer is present. Witnesses don’t get to speak without being questioned. The government doesn’t get to hide weaknesses behind closed doors. The defense can see, hear, object, and respond. This is adversarial. And it’s your opportunity to force the prosecution to prove they’re ready.

WAIVING THE HEARING: KNOW WHAT YOU’RE GIVING UP

Yes, you can waive your Article 32 hearing. Some do. Sometimes it’s part of a plea agreement or fast-track negotiation. But most of the time, it’s a tactical error. Waiving the hearing means surrendering:

• The chance to preview the government’s theory
• The ability to lock government witnesses into testimony
• The opportunity to suppress defective evidence
• The right to expose flaws before referral

Once waived, you enter trial blind. And worse, you give the prosecution free rein to shape the narrative without pushback. Unless you’ve spoken with a seasoned military attorney, don’t waive anything. Especially this.

THE POWER OF STRATEGIC DEFENSE DURING ARTICLE 32

A well-used Article 32 hearing can dismantle the prosecution’s confidence. For example:

• Sworn Statements: Witnesses called by the government may contradict prior statements or fold under questioning. These records become valuable later, especially if their story changes at trial.
• Evidentiary Gaps: If the government’s case relies on weak forensic evidence, circumstantial assumptions, or hearsay, this is where those weaknesses can be laid bare.
• Procedural Missteps: If command violated Article 31 rights or failed to advise the accused properly, it can be raised and documented here. That record matters later.

Your attorney may also use the hearing to introduce mitigating evidence such as contextual facts, character witnesses, or contrary accounts that shift the tone of the entire case.

WHAT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT CAN TRIGGER

The PHO writes a detailed report summarizing:

• Findings of probable cause (or lack thereof)
• Legal concerns or procedural errors
• Recommendations to proceed, modify charges, refer to NJP, or dismiss

This report goes to the convening authority, usually your brigade or base commander. That officer, while not bound by the report, must formally consider it before referral. If the PHO identifies real doubts, it can pause, alter, or stop the prosecution’s momentum entirely.

JOSEPH L. JORDAN: A DEFENSE STRATEGIST IN THE EARLY STAGES

Joseph L. Jordan served as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Army. He’s sat in the prosecution’s seat, run investigations, and challenged defense teams. Now, on the other side of the aisle, he uses that experience to intervene early and aggressively. His team doesn’t treat Article 32 hearings as procedural. They treat them as foundational. And that’s why so many of his clients never see the inside of a general court-martial.

📞 GET STRATEGIC. BEFORE CHARGES ARE REFERRED

The Article 32 hearing isn’t where your defense begins. It’s where it’s tested. Call (866) 624-7503 to speak with military attorney Joseph L. Jordan and take control of the only stage in the process where the government still has to prove its case to move forward.