Air Force Defense Counsel in 2019: Prior Cases, Turnover, and Team Size
In Air Force courts-martial tried in 2019, the defense more often had the lawyer with more prior cases: in 207 of 344 cases (60%), the most experienced defense counsel of record had more earlier courts-martial in this data than the most experienced trial counsel.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › Counsel Experience › Air Force 2019
Short answer: In Air Force courts-martial tried in 2019, the defense more often had the lawyer with more prior cases: in 207 of 344 cases (60%), the most experienced defense counsel of record had more earlier courts-martial in this data than the most experienced trial counsel. The median prior-case count for the defense was 12, and 7 of the 146 defense lawyers who appeared that year (5%) had no earlier case.
Defense Lawyers Had More Prior Cases in Most 2019 Trials
Lawyers for both sides are listed in 344 of the 346 cases from 2019. For each case, the counsel of record with the most prior cases on the defense side was compared with the one on the prosecution side.
The defense counsel had more prior cases in 207 cases (60%) and fewer in 123 (36%). The rest were tied. The comparison is of counts only, and it does not show which side was more effective.
The figure describes the 2019 cases as a group. It says nothing about any single lawyer or any single case.
Counting Prior Cases
On this page, a lawyer's experience is the number of courts-martial the lawyer had already been counsel of record on in this data, on either side, in the Air Force, before the trial date. That number is not a measure of skill. A lawyer may have tried cases before the records start, and those cases are not counted.
Defense teams sometimes include more than one lawyer, and the records do not say who led. So each case is grouped by the defense counsel of record with the most prior cases. No lawyer is rated or ranked.
10 to 19 Prior Cases Was the Most Common Range
Of the 346 cases, 344 list at least one defense counsel of record, and the median prior-case count for the most experienced was 12.
The 10 to 19 range covered 176 cases (51%). Next were 5 to 9 prior cases in 90 cases (26%) and 20 or more in 40 cases (12%). The 1 to 4 range had 37 cases (11%). Just 1 case had no defense counsel of record with any prior case in the data.
| Prior cases (most experienced defense counsel) | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| No prior cases | 1 | 0% |
| 1 to 4 | 37 | 11% |
| 5 to 9 | 90 | 26% |
| 10 to 19 | 176 | 51% |
| 20 or more | 40 | 12% |
Who Appeared for the Defense That Year
A total of 146 different defense counsel of record appear in Air Force cases tried in 2019. Of these, 7 (5%) had no earlier case in this data. Being new here means only that the records show no prior Air Force court-martial for that lawyer; it does not mean the lawyer had never tried a case.
Most lawyers handled a modest number of cases during the year. The 2 to 4 group was the largest, with 70 lawyers. Another 34 appeared in just 1 case, and 37 appeared in 5 to 9. Only 5 lawyers appeared in 10 or more cases as defense counsel that year.
| Cases as defense counsel in 2019 | Lawyers |
|---|---|
| 1 case | 34 |
| 2 to 4 cases | 70 |
| 5 to 9 cases | 37 |
| 10 or more cases | 5 |
Defense Team Size
A single defense counsel of record was listed in 189 of the 344 cases with defense counsel. Teams of 2 appeared in 135 cases, and 20 cases listed 3 or more. The records name lawyers but do not show how they divided the work or who spoke for the defense in court.
Charges and Discharges Compared With 2018
Article 128 (assault) appeared as a charge in 15% of 2019 cases, a higher share than the year before. In 2018, it appeared in 10%.
The punitive discharge rate for convicted enlisted members was about the same in both years: 57% in 2019 and 58% in 2018. A punitive discharge means a bad-conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. Sentences are as adjudged at trial, before any plea-agreement cap, clemency, or appeal.
These are figures for all 2019 cases. They are not linked to any lawyer or team.
Names, Coverage, and Other Services
Air Force counsel names are nearly complete from 2016. Trials from 2019 therefore draw on a longer run of earlier records than trials from 2018. Names that appear in more than one form are merged the same way as on Learn Your Lawyer.
Navy and Marine Corps records list counsel only from mid-2025, mostly by surname, so this page uses Air Force records only.
What These Records Do Not Show
Only cases that reached a courtroom are counted. Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, and cases with no action do not appear, and the records do not describe the evidence or the plea terms.
Air Force records rarely list charges in full acquittals and never report plea agreements. From 2016 to 2019, they also rarely list a guilty plea, which limits what can be said about pleas in 2019.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Every Air Force court-martial with a trial date in 2019 (346 cases). Counsel of record are as listed in the public records.
Source: public court-martial records (Article 140a, UCMJ) in Military Trial Results, data updated October 24, 2026. Definitions, sources, and known gaps: how this data was built. Errors: content@bodiesburied.com.
Related Analysis
- Counsel Experience (hub)
- Air Force Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- 2018: Experience of Air Force Defense Counsel of Record
- 2020: Experience of Air Force Trial Counsel of Record
- 2021: Experience of Air Force Trial Counsel of Record
- 2023: Experience of Air Force Trial Counsel of Record
- 2024: Experience of Air Force Trial Counsel of Record
- 2025: Experience of Air Force Defense Counsel of Record
- 2025: Experience of Air Force Trial Counsel of Record
- Search every case in Military Trial Results (members)
About the author. Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts Where All The Bodies Are Buried and runs the Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart. This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.