U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle A— General Military Law › PART II— PERSONNEL › CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER VII— TRIAL PROCEDURE

10 U.S.C. § 844

Art. 44. Former jeopardy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense.(b) No proceeding in which an accused has been found guilty by a court-martial upon any charge or specification is a trial in the sense of this article until the finding of guilty has become final after review of the case has been fully completed.(c)(1) A court-martial with a military judge alone is a trial in the sense of this section (article) if, without fault of the accused—(A) after introduction of evidence; and(B) before announcement of findings under section 853 of this title (article 53);the case is dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or the special trial counsel or on motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses.(2) A court-martial with a military judge and members is a trial in the sense of this section (article) if, without fault of the accused—(A) after the members, having taken an oath as members under section 842 of this title (article 42) and after completion of challenges under section 841 of this title (article 41), are impaneled; and(B) before announcement of findings under section 853 of this title (article 53);the case is dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or the special trial counsel or on motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 52; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, § 5226, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2910; Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title V, § 538, Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 1698.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

844(a)

844(b)

844(c)

50:619(a).

50:619(b).

50:619(c).

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 44), 64 Stat. 122.

In subsection (a), the word “may” is substituted for the word “shall”.

In subsection (b), the word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be held to be”.

In subsection (c), the word “after” is substituted for the words “subsequent to”. The word “before” is substituted for the words “prior to”. The word “is” is substituted for the words “shall be”.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2021—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–81 inserted “or the special trial counsel” after “the convening authority” in two places.

2016—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328 amended subsec. (c) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (c) read as follows: “A proceeding which, after the introduction of evidence but before a finding, is dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or on motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses without any fault of the accused is a trial in the sense of this article.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–81 effective on the date that is two years after Dec. 27, 2021, and applicable with respect to offenses that occur after that date, with provisions for delayed effect and applicability if regulations are not prescribed by the President before the date that is two years after Dec. 27, 2021, see section 539C of Pub. L. 117–81, set out as a note under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 117 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Quiroz, 55 M.J. 334 (C.A.A.F. 2001). · cites it 3× “The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and its codification in Article 44, UCMJ, 10 USC § 844 , together with the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial, prohibit multiple trials and multiple sentences for the “same” offense.”
United States v. Girouard, 70 M.J. 5 (C.A.A.F. 2011). · cites it 2× “603 analysis muddies the question of whether another trial on the affected findings in this case is barred by Article 44, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844 , or by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution in light of our system of mandatory appeal.”
United States v. Forrester, 76 M.J. 479 (C.A.A.F. 2017). · cites it 2× “V; see also Article 44(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844 (a) (2012) (“No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense.”
United States v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308 (C.A.A.F. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 831 (2000) (right against self-incrimination); Article 44, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844 (2000) (double jeopardy); Article 55, UCMJ, 10 U.”
United States v. Mizgala, 61 M.J. 122 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “10 U.S.C. § 844 (2000). . 10 U.S.C. § 846 (2000).”
United States v. Zubko, 18 M.J. 378 (C.M.A. 1984). · cites it 2× “Article 44, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844 ; see Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.”
United States v. Baker, 14 M.J. 361 (C.M.A. 1983). “Multiple convictions may raise questions concerning Double Jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment and Article 44, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844 . See Notes and Comments, Twice in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L.”
State v. Morley, 952 P.2d 167 (Wash. 1998). “§ 839 (b)); no person may be tried a second time for the same offense ( 10 U.S.C. § 844 ); the accused may withdraw his plea prior to sentencing ( 10 U.”
United States v. Pierce, 27 M.J. 367 (C.M.A. 1989). “Article 44, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 844 (Former jeopardy), does not, by its terms, apply to nonjudicial punishments.”
United States v. Cook, 12 M.J. 448 (C.M.A. 1982). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, the questions posed to this Court are whether the Government is barred as a matter of law from revitalizing the charges initially withdrawn here and, even if not, whether the Government is precluded from doing so as a matter of fairness under the circumstances of…”
United States v. Easton, 71 M.J. 168 (C.A.A.F. 2012). “The Government failed to meet the high standard required for manifest necessity: trial counsel knew that the video tapes were unusable but still proceeded to trial; and there is no indication in the record that the convening authority withdrew the charges based on manifest…”
United States v. Britton, 47 M.J. 195 (C.A.A.F. 1997). “A Constitutional Concerns The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that no person shall “be subject, for the same offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” a doctrine that also is reflected in Article 44, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 844 .”
Show all 117 citing cases →
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.