More than two years after Prapublica, the Ministry of Defense for the first time sent the US military offices to preliminary hearings, the most important milestone in criminal cases.
These “Article 32” hearings end with a recommendation on whether it is worth moving forward, to be rejected or ended in an unusual punishment.
Dodd General Earl Carolyn Conserva Issued a guide Earlier this year, sending secretaries of the Navy, Army, Air Force and Internal Security (which controls the Coast Guard) to place the future previous hearings, provide access to certain court records and publish the results of military trial The courts are the military court on the public site.
But legal experts say Federal Law In demand that the military dramatically increase public access to their justice.
The military has long resist the opening of their business for the public. The Law of 2016, adopted after Discoveries about bewildered sexual violence In the conditions of the armed forces, it is instructed to develop a policy similar to civil courts that provide public access to “all stages of the justice system”. A Federal Court system It gives a public wide, electronic access to graphs and hearing in real time, except for the most sensitive criminal cases.
Unlike this, the military usually contains all court records as long as the cases are active and keeping the secret unless the defendant is found guilty. It also does not provide any public records of affairs at the previous hearing, including the reports that recommend whether it is necessary to dismiss the cases or move forward to the military court.
Experts say that lack of transparency deprives the public of the ability to understand whether military justice is rightly and how the departments respond to problems such as sexual attacks in the ranks.
New instructions change nothing. This requires the military to disclose the results of the court’s military hearings, but not up to seven days after completion. Test and appeals records should not be published up to 45 days after the “certified” entry, which may be the months after the end of the trial or appeal.
Good journalism matters:
Our non -profit, independent edition has one job: to account for a powerful accounting. Here’s how our investigations Spresses in the real world change:
We are trying something new. Was this useful?
And the new leadership requires the military to report at least three days of notice about the future previous hearings in their courts. This gives anyone interested in visiting the pre -hearing in just a few days to get the design to enter the military base where it is planned to hear and go to the base, perhaps across the country. Receiving the registration to enter the military base can take a week and more Depending on the location.
Even then, the participants do not know the importance of the case and even the full name of the accused when they were not directly involved. Navy started posting reports of previous hearings late last year On his court siteBut these reports currently lack the accused’s full name and does not explain that the person is accused of the crime category.
“The previous stage of the hearing is often the highest when the public interest in disputes,” said Franklin Rosenblatt, Associate Professor of the Mississippi Law School and president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “The media, the affected communities and others are now looking more into the military justice process than before. But in the end it is half a measures. This is not the modern access to the criminal lobes that the rest of the country awaits.”
A lawsuout propublica He is looking for modern access to court records of all levels, including cases that led to justifiable sentences, and the ruling that such information is supposed if the military shows that in each case there is a convincing need.
The Committee of Journalists for Freedom of the Press and 34 Media -Organization submitted submitted A short amicus In case of claiming that the unnoticed military practices do not comply with the federal law and decades of court rulings, including several US Supreme Court. PROPUBLICA is presented in the lawsuit by Deputy General Lawyer Matthews, as well as lawyers Pro Bono in Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.
“We are pleased to see some gradual progress, but this is much less than what the first amendment and the mandate requirement in Congress,” Matthew said. “Three days often lack time to access the base, and since the Navy of Maintenance is charged with letters until the case is over, the public does not even find out what the hearing is going on. All court records, when the case happens, only highlighting the tiny share of the record months or even years after the end of the case, and then only if the defendant is found guilty. “
Matthew said that this practice “makes the public practically impossible to know whether they are right to military vessels and when justice is done.”
The Navy does not comment on the lawsuits, the press secretary said.
In December movementLaw lawyers, then Defense Minister Lloid Austin and other defendants asked the judges to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming that the decisions on military policy against court access did not meet the judicial field and that the first amendment does not require modern and “unlimited” access to such records And hearings. Propublica opposed this movement In January.
War Propublica claims not applied Because the law does not delay the first amendment and will not allow the court records. Dod also admitted It can release records despite the privacy law.
The processing of the Fleet Fleet Fleet has triggered the Proopublica lawsuits filed with the US Southern District Court. In 2020, the ship -amphibian assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard caught fire and burned more than four days. The ship was destroyed that more than $ 1 billion loss of the Military Fleet.
The Military Fleet has prosecuted sailor Ryan Meissa on charges of aggravating arson and deliberate danger of the vessel. Propublica found that was little to connect it to the flame Including no real evidence that Messi – or anyone – set fire.
Maiss was found not guilty At his military court in 2022, Prapublica sued the Navy refusal to release any court documents related to his case.
Prapublica asked the court to order the defense secretary to issue due rules for the release of records, hearings schedules and other information. Government tried to remove this part of the lawsuitclaiming that Austin was allowed to decide how to obey the law.
Federal Judge Last year made a decision that claims propublica vs Austin should move forward. The judge wrote that Propublica “plausibly claimed that the guidelines issued clearly contradicted the mandate of the congress.”
Recent Independent Federal Review of the Military Justice System According to experts, it is recommended that the DOD fully comply with the 2016 law by developing electronic access to state doches and providing “direct public access to the previous, judicial and appeal military records at the time of application”.
“More accurate data and greater transparency are needed to increase confidence and confidence,” the review said.
Megan Rose contributed to the report.
