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 VII— TRIAL PROCEDURE

10 U.S.C. § 850

Art. 50. Admissibility of sworn testimony from records of courts of inquiry

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Use as Evidence by Any Party.—In any case not capital and not extending to the dismissal of a commissioned officer, the sworn testimony, contained in the duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of inquiry, of a person whose oral testimony cannot be obtained, may, if otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, be read in evidence by any party before a court-martial or military commission if the accused was a party before the court of inquiry and if the same issue was involved or if the accused consents to the introduction of such evidence. This section does not apply to a military commission established under chapter 47A of this title.(b)Use as Evidence by Defense.—Such testimony may be read in evidence only by the defense in capital cases or cases extending to the dismissal of a commissioned officer.(c)Use in Courts of Inquiry and Military Boards.—Such testimony may also be read in evidence before a court of inquiry or a military board.(d)Audiotape or Videotape.—Sworn testimony that—(1) is recorded by audiotape, videotape, or similar method; and(2) is contained in the duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of inquiry;is admissible before a court-martial, military commission, court of inquiry, or military board, to the same extent as sworn testimony may be read in evidence before any such body under subsection (a), (b), or (c).(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 54; Pub. L. 109–366, § 4(a)(2), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2631; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, § 5232, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2915.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

850(a)

850(b)

50:625(a).

50:625(b).

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 50), 64 Stat. 124.

850(c)

50:625(c).

In subsections (a) and (b), the word “commissioned” is inserted for clarity.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Pub. L. 114–328, § 5232(b), amended section catchline generally, substituting “Admissibility of sworn testimony from records of courts of inquiry” for “Admissibility of records of courts of inquiry”.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5232(c)(1), inserted heading.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5232(c)(2), inserted heading.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5232(c)(3), inserted heading.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 114–328, § 5232(a), added subsec. (d).

2006—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 109–366 inserted last sentence.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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 11 cases, 1958–2009 · leading case: United States v. McNutt, 62 M.J. 16 (C.A.A.F. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. McNutt, 62 M.J. 16 (C.A.A.F. 2005). · cites it 2× “That court shall perform a new Article 66(c), UCMJ, sentence appropriateness 56 10 U.S.C. § 850 (a)(2000). 20 United States v.”
Golding v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 697 (Fed. Cl. 2001). “10 U.S.C. § 850 (1988) (Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 50).”
Henry L. Gardner v. Erik K. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 415 (Vet. App. 2009). “354 (a) with 10 U.S.C. § 850 (a); see also United States v.”
Harold R. Conn v. The United States, 376 F.2d 878 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “Article 50 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 850 (1964 ed.) provides: “(a) In any case not capital and not extending to the dismissal of a commissioned officer, the sworn testimony, contained in tbe duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of…”
United States v. Connor, 27 M.J. 378 (1989). “Article 50(a), 10 USC § 850 (a), which concerns courts of inquiry, states: In any case not capital and not extending to the dismissal of a commissioned *383 officer, the sworn testimony, contained in the duly authenticated record of proceedings of a court of inquiry, of a person…”
Jacques Arthur Gubbels v. Richard C. Hoy, as Dist. Dir., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Los Angeles, California, 261 F.2d 952 (9th Cir. 1958). “29, 39 Stat. 889 . As then enacted, its provision for notice was that “due notice” be given to “representatives of the State”, and the recommendation was to the Secretary of Labor.”
United States v. Tarver, 29 M.J. 605 (1989). “The trial judge in that case ruled that Article 50(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850 (a) and R.C.M. 916(k)(2) precluded the use of the evidence.”
Leslie F. Narum v. United States, 287 F.2d 897 (Ct. Cl. 1960). “Now 10 U.S.C.A. § 850 . . Now 10 U.S.C.A. § 935 .”
United States v. Arruza, 21 M.J. 591 (1985). “Article 50, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850 (1982) relates to the admissibility of records of courts of inquiry.”
United States v. Obligacion, 17 C.M.A. 36 (1967). “In short, pretrial testimony is not within the coverage of Code, supra, Article 49, and no parallel can be drawn between it and oral depositions taken thereunder. If anything, an Article 32 investigation more nearly resembles the taking of testimony in a court of inquiry,…”
Freeman v. Stuart, 33 M.J. 659 (1991). “305(j)(l)(B); (3) a writ of mandamus ordering the military judge to order the Government to provide necessary and relevant witnesses to determine whether, as an interlocutory matter, the petitioner meets the requirements of Article 50(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850 (a); (4) a writ of…”
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.