National Institute of Military Justice
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Home
  • About
    • Officers
    • Board of Directors
    • Fellows
  • Orders Project
    • Contact Us
    • Who We Are
    • Sourcebook
  • Trans Rep. Project
  • CAAFlog
  • Global Reform
  • Library
    • Amicus Briefs
    • Position Papers & Letters
    • Reports
    • Gazette
    • Miscellaneous
    • General Military Law
  • Links
    • State Codes
    • Non-DoD Organizations
    • Foreign Systems
  • Prizes
  • Contact Us
  • Donate

CAAFlog

By the numbers 2022

1/17/2023

 
Update: The number of Article 15s has dropped significantly as well. 150,00 in FY90, 80,000 in FY00, and 36,000 in FY22.
The JSC has published the joint report to Congress under UCMJ art. 140a.
​Courts-martial numbers continued their slide downward in FY22. In total the services completed 1,179 general and special courts. That is down from 1361 in FY21 and 1542 in FY19. For more historical perspective in FY15, the total was 1940, FY00 it was 4824 and FY90 was 9907. In FY60 the services completed 40,810 generals and specials.  

There were 670 GCMs and 509 SPCMs compared to 827 GCMs and 534 SPCMs in FY21. There were a total of 169 acquittals for a conviction rate of 86%. Only 283 courts were with members meaning 76% of all courts were judge alone.  

Numbers by service:

The Air Force completed 161 GCMs and 153 SPCMs. There were 43 acquittals for a conviction rate of 86%. For GCMs the conviction rate was 77% up from 55% in FY21. The Air Force had 113 member courts or 36%, which is the highest percentage of members courts of any of the services. The Air Force has 21 active duty judges. The report does not list the number of Reserve judges. This means there were 15 courts a year for each active duty judge. Of those, only 5 were with members.

The Air Force has 83 ADCs and 18 CDCs. The average ADC did 3.8 courts with 1.3 before members. The average ADC had .5 acquittals last fiscal year. Considering the ADC position is viewed as the place where Air Force JAGs get the litigation experience needed to become senior defense and trial counsel, this is worrisome. Additionally, civilian defense counsel or circuit defense counsel likely do most findings arguments. It seems probable that the average Air Force JAG will leave the ADC position without ever presenting a findings argument, especially before members. The Air Force completed 4183 Article 15s or about 50 per ADC. 

There are 23 CTCs which works out  to 7 GCMs a year if every GCM has an CTC detailed to the case. Highly unlikely. 66 of the GCMs were before members. That comes to 2.8 members GCMs per CTC in a year.  The Air Force has 1318 active duty JAGs with 580 captains and 367 majors, which averages out to .3 courts a year for a O-3/O-4 JAG. Of course, not all O-3s and O-4s are doing courts, but it does give perspective on litigation workload in the JAGC. By comparison, in FY90 the Air Force had close to the same number of JAGs but completed 1480 GCMs and SPCMs.

The Army completed 478 GCMs and SPCMs with 64 acquittals for a conviction rate of 87%.  242 of the courts were GCMs and 129 were SPCMs. 107 of the courts were before members or 22%. 153 of the cases were fully contested, 49 were mixed pleas and 276 were guilty pleas. I wish all the services provided this data, but this means it's possible to see the conviction rate in fully contested courts. When the accused pleaded not guilty to all charges in FY22, they were acquitted 42% of the time. The Army has 142 TDS JAGs, so this is basically one fully contested case a year per TDS attorney.  The Army had 24 active duty trial judges and 22 Reserve judges. I have no idea how often Reserve judges preside over Army cases, so it is difficult to figure out their workload. The Army has 1740 active duty JAGs with 543 majors and 896 captains.

The Marines did 206 GCMs and SPCMs in FY22 with 38 acquittals. The overall conviction rate is 82%. 93 of the courts were GCMs and 113 were SPCMs. Only 28 or 14% of the cases were before members. The Marines had the lowest percentage of members courts. I could not find the total number of defense counsel in the Marines, but the Marines have 72 JAGs who appear to act as trial counsel. If accurate this means about 3 courts per year for the average trial counsel.

The Navy did 181 GCMs and SPCMs in FY22 with 24 acquittals. The overall conviction rate was 87%. 81 of the courts were GCMs and 100 were SPCMs. The Navy and Marines have 27 active duty and 14 Reserve judges. That comes to 14 courts per year for each active duty judge. Again, that is certainly less depending how many were done by Reserve judges. 35 or 19% of the courts were before members. JAGs in the Navy/USMC appear to  have little opportunity to practice before members.
These rough and broad numbers were prepared for us by a colleague well familiar with the reports over the years. The numbers lead to some troubling questions or thoughts.

You can see our earlier stabs at numbers here.
A Navy TC
1/17/2023 22:05:52

The numbers are nothing short of staggering. Very little opportunity to try any cases in the Navy, much less a member's trial. The precipitous decline in cases should give every practitioner pause on the reasons why.

The increased VWAP and admin responsibilities on trial counsel has made it more and more difficult to bring a case from investigation just to preferral. When you spend 90% of your time tracking down victims, writing prosecution merits memos, fulfilling all VWAP, etc., it just becomes harder to focus on the cases that are preferred. Not to say that those responsibilities aren't important, but they are an enormous time drain on prosecution resources.

And then, as an added bonus, once there is preferral there is hyper-focus on that case considering the amount of time defense can usually dedicate to any given case. Driving again attention away from other cases, and confirming in the commander's eyes that the court-martial system is too slow to handle the kind of good order and discipline cases it used to handle.

None of this is necessarily good or bad, but it has driven I think a vast gulf between what the court-martial system was intended to be and into a much more "civilianized" process that will obviously continue on a speed-track with OSTC. The next 5 years are going to be interesting to see where it all goes.

Brenner Fissell
1/18/2023 19:24:19

Perhaps there are simply too many judges and too many lawyers.

Nathan Freeburg
1/18/2023 19:40:14

Until you account for sep boards, none of the above will make any sense. (And yes, it’s almost impossible for an outside observer to fathom that prosecutors and defense attorneys are spending the majority of their time on employment matters.)


Comments are closed.
    Disclaimer: Posts are the authors' personal opinions and do not reflect the position of any organization or government agency.
    Picture
    Co-editors:
    Phil Cave
    Brenner Fissell
    Links

    ​SCOTUS
    CAAF

    -Daily Journal
    -2025 Ops
    ​
    ACCA
    AFCCA
    CGCCA
    NMCCA
    JRAP
    JRTP


    UCMJ

    Amendments to UCMJ Since 1950 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to RCM Since 1984 (2024 ed.)

    Amendments to MRE Since 1984 (2024 ed.)
    ​
    ​
    MCM 2024
    ​
    MCM 2023

    MCM 2019
    MCM 2016
    MCM 2012
    MCM 1995

    ​
    UMCJ History

    Global Reform
    Army Lawyer
    JAG Reporter
    ​
    Army Crim. L. Deskbook

    J. App. Prac. & Pro.

    Dockets

    Air Force

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Army

    Art. 32.
    Trial.

    Coast Guard

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    ​"Records."

    Navy-Marine Corps

    Art. 32.
    Trial.
    "Records."

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022

    Categories

    All
    ByTheNumbers
    Case2Watch
    CrimLaw
    Evidence
    Fed. Cts.
    Habeas Cases
    IHL/LOAC
    Legislation
    MilJust Transparency
    NewsOWeird
    Opinions ACCA
    Opinions-ACCA
    Opinions AFCCA
    Opinions CAAF
    Opinions CGCCA
    Opinions NMCCA
    Readings
    Sentenciing
    Sex Off. Reg.
    Sexual Assault
    Supreme Court
    Unanimous Verdicts

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly