How Many Prior Courts-Martial Had Air Force Trial Counsel Tried? 2019
Every Air Force court-martial tried in 2019 lists a trial counsel of record, and the median prior-case count of the most experienced prosecutor on each team was 7. Prosecution teams were often large: 130 of the 346 cases listed 3 or more trial counsel.
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › Counsel Experience › Air Force 2019
Short answer: Every Air Force court-martial tried in 2019 lists a trial counsel of record, and the median prior-case count of the most experienced prosecutor on each team was 7. Prosecution teams were often large: 130 of the 346 cases listed 3 or more trial counsel. Of the 367 different trial counsel who appeared that year, 126 (34%) had no earlier case in this data.
Prosecution Teams Often Had 3 or More Lawyers
Of the 346 cases from 2019, 160 listed 2 trial counsel of record and 130 listed 3 or more. Only 56 listed a single prosecutor, so teams of 3 or more appeared in more cases than single-lawyer teams did.
A team count is a count of names in the trial record. The records do not say who led, how the work was split, or whether every listed lawyer was present for the whole trial.
What Prior Cases Measure
Experience, on this page, is the number of courts-martial a lawyer had already been counsel of record on in this data, on either side, in the Air Force, before the trial date. A lawyer may have handled cases before the records start, and those are not part of the count. The count is not a measure of skill.
Since teams list several lawyers and no lead, each case is grouped by its trial counsel of record with the most prior cases. Nothing here ranks or rates any lawyer.
Counts are taken as of each trial date. A lawyer who tried several cases during 2019 therefore had a higher count at each later trial that year than at the first.
Prior-Case Counts on 2019 Prosecution Teams
All 346 cases list at least one trial counsel of record. The median prior-case count for the most experienced was 7.
The 1 to 4 group was the largest, with 101 cases (29%), and the 5 to 9 group was almost as large, with 97 (28%). The 10 to 19 group had 77 cases (22%), and 58 cases (17%) had a trial counsel with 20 or more prior cases.
In 13 cases (4%), no trial counsel of record on the team had a prior case in this data.
| Prior cases (most experienced trial counsel) | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| No prior cases | 13 | 4% |
| 1 to 4 | 101 | 29% |
| 5 to 9 | 97 | 28% |
| 10 to 19 | 77 | 22% |
| 20 or more | 58 | 17% |
Turnover Among Trial Counsel
The 2019 records name 367 different trial counsel of record. Of these, 126 (34%) had no earlier court-martial in this data. That means only that the records show no prior case for the lawyer, not that the lawyer had never tried one.
Most prosecutors appeared in very few cases during the year. The largest group, 188 lawyers, appeared in 1 case, and 148 appeared in 2 to 4. Only 28 appeared in 5 to 9 cases, and 3 appeared in 10 or more.
| Cases as trial counsel in 2019 | Lawyers |
|---|---|
| 1 case | 188 |
| 2 to 4 cases | 148 |
| 5 to 9 cases | 28 |
| 10 or more cases | 3 |
The Defense Side More Often Had More Prior Cases
Lawyers for both sides are listed in 344 cases. Comparing the counsel of record with the most prior cases on each side, the trial counsel had more prior cases in 123 cases (36%) and fewer in 207 (60%). The rest were tied.
This is a comparison of earlier appearances in the data. It is not a measure of either side's ability, and it does not show how any case turned out.
These figures describe the 2019 cases as a group. They say nothing about the lawyers in any single case.
Charges and Discharges Compared With 2018
Article 128 (assault) was charged in 15% of 2019 cases, compared with 10% in 2018.
The share of convicted enlisted members who received a punitive discharge was about the same in both years: 57% in 2019 and 58% in 2018. A punitive discharge is a bad-conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge for enlisted members, and the officer equivalent is a dismissal. These sentences are as adjudged at trial and are not broken down by lawyer.
Coverage of Names
Air Force counsel names are nearly complete from 2016, so 2019 trials have a few years of earlier records counted. Names written in more than one way 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 they are not included.
Gaps in the Records
The records give trial dates, not offense dates. They do not describe the evidence or the plea terms, and they leave out cases handled by nonjudicial punishment or administrative separation.
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, so plea information for 2019 trials is limited.
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.