(a) Before directing the trial of any charge by general court-martial, the convening authority shall refer it to the State Judge Advocate for consideration and advice. The convening authority may not refer a charge to a general court-martial for trial unless he has been advised in writing by the staff judge advocate that: (1) The specification alleges an offense under this chapter; (2) the specification is warranted by the evidence indicated in the report of investigation under section 27-173, if there is such a report; and (3) a court-martial would have jurisdiction over the accused and the offense.
(b) The advice of the staff judge advocate under subsection (a) of this section with respect to a specification under a charge shall include a written and signed statement by the staff judge advocate (1) expressing his conclusions with respect to each matter set forth in subsection (a) of this section; and (2) recommending action that the convening authority take regarding the specification. If the specification is referred for trial, the recommendation of the staff judge advocate shall accompany the specification.
(c) If the charges or specifications are not formally correct or do not conform to the substance of the evidence contained in the report of the investigating officer, formal corrections, and such changes in the charges and specifications as are needed to make them conform to the evidence, may be made.
(1967, P.A. 717, S. 35; P.A. 89-221, S. 7.)
History: P.A. 89-221 amended Subsec. (a) to replace as a precondition of referring a charge to a general court-martial the requirement that the convening authority “has found that the charge alleges an offense under this code and is warranted by evidence indicated in the report of the investigation” with requirement that the convening authority “has been advised in writing by the staff judge advocate that the specification alleges an offense under this chapter, that the specification is warranted by the evidence indicated in the report of investigation under Sec. 27-173, if there is such a report, and that a court-martial would have jurisdiction over the accused and the offense”, added a new Subsec. (b) requiring the advice of the staff judge advocate to include a written and signed statement re his conclusions and recommendations and requiring the recommendation of the staff judge advocate to accompany the specification if the specification is referred for trial, and redesignated former Subsec. (b) as Subsec. (c).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.