U.S. Code
»
Title 10
» Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE
10 U.S.C. § 835
Art. 35. Service of charges; commencement of trial
(a)In General.—Trial counsel detailed for a court-martial under section 827 of this title (article 27) shall cause to be served upon the accused a copy of the charges and specifications referred for trial.(b)Commencement of Trial.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), no trial or other proceeding of a general court-martial or a special court-martial (including any session under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)) may be held over the objection of the accused—(A) with respect to a general court-martial, from the time of service through the fifth day after the date of service; or(B) with respect to a special court-martial, from the time of service through the third day after the date of service.(2) An objection under paragraph (1) may be raised only at the first session of the trial or other proceeding and only if the first session occurs before the end of the applicable period under paragraph (1)(A) or (1)(B). If the first session occurs before the end of the applicable period, the military judge shall, at that session, inquire as to whether the defense objects under this subsection.(3) This subsection shall not apply in time of war.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 49; Pub. L. 90–632, § 2(12), Oct. 24, 1968, 82 Stat. 1337; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVI, § 5206, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2908.)The word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”. The word “after” is substituted for the words “subsequent to”.
Editorial NotesAmendments2016—Pub. L. 114–328 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: “The trial counsel to whom court-martial charges are referred for trial shall cause to be served upon the accused a copy of the charges upon which trial is to be had. In time of peace no person may, against his objection, be brought to trial, or be required to participate by himself or counsel in a session called by the military judge under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)), in a general court-martial case within a period of five days after the service of charges upon him, or in a special court-martial case within a period of three days after the service of charges upon him.”
1968—Pub. L. 90–632 inserted reference to a session called by the military judge under section 839(a) of this title (article 39(a)).
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.
Effective Date of 1968 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 90–632 effective first day of tenth month following October 1968, see section 4 of Pub. L. 90–632, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Cherok, 22 M.J. 438 (1986).
· cites it 3× “Because trial counsel had not caused appellant to be served with a copy of the charges until that day, the military judge advised appellant of his statutory right under Article 35, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 835 , to a delay of 5 days between the service of charges and the trial.”
United States v. Cooley, 75 M.J. 247 (C.A.A.F. 2016).
“Article 35, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 835 (2012), provides an accused in a general court-martial case a right to a five-day delay between the service of charges and any Article 39(a), UCMJ, session or trial proceeding.”
United States v. Boles, 11 M.J. 195 (1981).
· cites it 2× “” Unlike Article 35, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 835 , 6 which forbids, *206 over the objection of the accused, initiation of trial within a time less than that prescribed, the regulation imposes no time restraints other than that allowed the individual to…”
United States v. Johnson, 10 M.J. 213 (1981).
· cites it 2× “act that “[i]n many military situations Sundays and holidays are not considered days of rest,” the Court concluded that a Sunday and a holiday that fell within the 5-day period that elapsed between service of charges upon the accused and the day of trial were not ex-cludable,…”
United States v. Longhofer, 29 M.J. 22 (1989).
“” 11 Lastly, the Government claims additional days should have been excluded by the military judge — 5 days for service under Article 35, UCMJ, 10 USC § 835 , and 11 days for the Article 32 investigating officer to prepare his report.”
United States v. Lazauskas, 62 M.J. 39 (C.A.A.F. 2005).
“October 6-10 — statutory waiting period under Article 35, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 835 . August 8-13, 2001. The first period of time in dispute is a six-day continuance allowed during an Article 32 hearing.”
United States v. Ward, 23 C.M.A. 391 (1975).
· cites it 2× “Article 35, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 835 . Appellate defense counsel contend that on that date naval authorities knew the Federal Government had exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed within the bounds of the air station and were negligent in not…”
United States v. Tibbs, 15 C.M.A. 350 (1965).
“Under Article 35 of the Uniform Code, supra, 10 USC § 835 , the accused could not be tried over his objection “within a period of five days after the service of the charges upon him.”
United States v. Saxon, 9 M.J. 948 (1980).
· cites it 5× “” The military judge implicitly concluded that the service of charges on 5 December 1977 prior to the original trial satisfied the statutory requirement of Article 35, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 835 , rejecting the argument of defense counsel that paragraphs 44h and 58c, Manual for…”
United States v. Oakley, 33 M.J. 27 (1991).
“35, UCMJ, 10 USC § 835 ; RCM 602. However, his right “to present his defense all at one time” is not so clear — and his claim thereto in this Court is unadorned with citation of authority.”
United States v. Tunnell, 23 M.J. 110 (1986).
“However, that provision — Article 35, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 835 — is of little aid because it provides for a computation of the time that has passed after an event has occurred.”
United States v. Williams, 54 M.J. 757 (2001).
“602 and Article 35, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 835 , the statutory provision from which the rule is drawn, both require that, “The trial counsel to whom court-martial charges are referred shall cause to be served upon the accused a copy of the charges upon which trial is to be had.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.