First Case in the Data: How Often Was an Army Lawyer of Record New? 2023–2026
Among Army courts-martial tried from January 2023 through October 2026, 67 of the 1574 cases with a trial counsel listed (4%) had no trial counsel of record with a prior case in this data. On the defense side, the figure was 42 of 1577 cases (3%).
Understanding Trends in Military Practice · 5 min read
Trends › Counsel Experience › First Case in the Data
Short answer: Among Army courts-martial tried from January 2023 through October 2026, 67 of the 1574 cases with a trial counsel listed (4%) had no trial counsel of record with a prior case in this data. On the defense side, the figure was 42 of 1577 cases (3%). The median prior-case count of the most experienced lawyer on each team was 9 for the prosecution and 8 for the defense.
How Often Neither Lawyer on a Side Had a Prior Case
This page asks how often every lawyer of record on one side of an Army case was new to the data, meaning none of them had an earlier court-martial in it.
For the prosecution, that happened in 67 cases (4%). For the defense, it happened in 42 cases (3%). On both sides, nearly every team had at least one lawyer with earlier cases in the data.
New in this sense only means the data shows no earlier Army court-martial for that lawyer. The lawyer may have tried cases before the records begin or in another service.
Experience, Defined
A lawyer's experience is the number of courts-martial that lawyer had already been counsel of record on in this data, on either side, in the Army, before the trial date. It is not a measure of skill.
Most Army cases list more than one lawyer per side, and the records do not say who led. Each side of each case is therefore placed by its most experienced lawyer of record. This page does not rank or rate anyone.
Defense Counsel: Prior-Case Counts
At least one defense counsel of record is listed in 1577 of the 1721 cases. The median prior-case count for the most experienced defense counsel was 8.
Two ranges held about the same number of cases: 528 (33%) in the 5 to 9 group and 521 (33%) in the 10 to 19 group. The 1 to 4 group had 335 cases (21%), and 151 cases (10%) had a defense counsel with 20 or more prior cases.
| Prior cases (most experienced defense counsel) | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| No prior cases | 42 | 3% |
| 1 to 4 | 335 | 21% |
| 5 to 9 | 528 | 33% |
| 10 to 19 | 521 | 33% |
| 20 or more | 151 | 10% |
Trial Counsel: Prior-Case Counts
At least one trial counsel of record is listed in 1574 cases. The median prior-case count for the most experienced trial counsel was 9.
The largest group was 10 to 19 prior cases, with 470 cases (30%). Next were 5 to 9 with 393 cases (25%) and 1 to 4 with 355 cases (23%). The prosecution had a lawyer with 20 or more prior cases in 289 cases (18%), more often than the defense did.
| Prior cases (most experienced trial counsel) | Cases | Share |
|---|---|---|
| No prior cases | 67 | 4% |
| 1 to 4 | 355 | 23% |
| 5 to 9 | 393 | 25% |
| 10 to 19 | 470 | 30% |
| 20 or more | 289 | 18% |
Size of Each Side's Team
Two lawyers per side was the most common arrangement for both. Of the 1574 cases with a trial counsel, 1143 listed 2 trial counsel of record, 294 listed 1, and 137 listed 3 or more.
Of the 1577 cases with a defense counsel, 899 listed 2 defense counsel of record, 626 listed 1, and 52 listed 3 or more. A single defense lawyer was more common than a single prosecutor.
Pleas and Verdicts Across These Cases
Of the 1721 cases, 24% were contested, meaning the accused pleaded not guilty to at least one charge. In a case that is not contested, the accused pleaded guilty to every charge.
Of the contested cases that reached a verdict, 160 of 400 ended in a full acquittal, a finding of not guilty on every charge (40%). These are figures for all Army cases in the period and are not broken down by lawyer.
Cases by Year and the Rules in Effect
There were 469 cases in 2023, 478 in 2024, 446 in 2025, and 328 in 2026 through October.
Since December 28, 2023, special trial counsel, not commanders, decide whether to prosecute covered offenses such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and murder. When every guilty finding in a case is for an offense after December 27, 2023, the military judge sets the sentence under new sentencing parameters. Both rules depend on offense dates, which these records do not give, so trials from 2024 on include cases under both the old and new rules.
Coverage Limits
Army counsel names are nearly complete from 2021. This page starts two years later so that most lawyers have earlier cases in the data before their first case here. Names written in different ways are merged as on Learn Your Lawyer. Navy and Marine Corps records list counsel only from mid-2025, mostly by surname, so they are not included.
Only cases that reached a courtroom are counted. Nonjudicial punishment, administrative separation, and cases with no action are absent, and the evidence and plea terms are not described.
Dates and sources for the law changes mentioned here: UCMJ change timeline.
How We Counted
Army courts-martial with trial dates in 2023–2026 (1721 cases).
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)
- Army Courts-Martial: Data and Trends (hub)
- Bigger Teams for Bigger Cases? Army Counsel of Record by Charge, 2023–2026
- The Experience Gap: Defense vs. Prosecution in Contested Army Cases, 2023–2026
- Bigger Teams for Bigger Cases? Air Force Counsel of Record by Charge, 2018–2026
- First Case in the Data: How Often Was an Air Force Lawyer of Record New? 2018–2026
- The Experience Gap: Defense vs. Prosecution in Contested Air Force Cases, 2020–2026
- 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.