New evidence discovered after a court-martial conviction has reached final judgment faces a demanding standard before it will be considered sufficient to reopen the case. The military appellate system provides mechanisms for raising newly discovered evidence, but they are not designed as a routine second chance at litigation. The evidence must be genuinely new, meaning it was not available and could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence at the time of trial, and it must be material in the sense that it would likely have produced a different outcome.
When new evidence does meet the applicable standard, petitions can be filed with the appropriate service court or, after those remedies are exhausted, through federal habeas corpus. The process is long, the standard is high, and success is rare. But cases exist where post-conviction DNA analysis, recantations, or the emergence of evidence that the government suppressed have succeeded in overturning military convictions. Assessing whether newly discovered evidence meets the applicable threshold requires experienced appellate counsel who knows the specific procedural pathways available.
The Legal Standard for New Evidence Claims After Final Judgment
After a court-martial conviction becomes final through the completion of direct appellate review, introducing new evidence requires satisfying a demanding standard that is designed to balance the finality of judgments against the imperative of not maintaining an unjust conviction. The evidence must be newly discovered, meaning it was not available at the time of trial and could not have been found through the exercise of reasonable diligence by trial counsel. Evidence that existed at trial but was not located because defense counsel did not look for it does not satisfy the newly discovered requirement.
Even if the evidence is genuinely new, it must be material and of the type that would probably produce a different result at a new trial. Evidence that is merely cumulative of what was presented, or that impeaches a witness on a collateral matter, or that might have been useful but would not likely have changed the outcome, does not meet this standard. Courts reviewing new evidence claims apply a high threshold precisely because the finality of judgments serves important institutional interests that must be weighed against the injustice of maintaining a particular conviction.
How to File a Petition Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
Petitions based on newly discovered evidence are filed through a petition for new trial under Article 73 of the UCMJ. The petition must specifically identify the evidence, explain why it qualifies as newly discovered, explain why it was not available through reasonable diligence at trial, and make the case that the evidence would likely have produced a different outcome. The petition is filed with the Judge Advocate General of the relevant service, who then refers it to the appropriate appellate court.
Timing matters significantly: Article 73 petitions must be filed within three years of the conviction. After that period, the petitioner must pursue federal habeas corpus, which has its own procedural requirements and a more demanding standard. Defense counsel who become aware of potentially qualifying new evidence must assess the applicable deadline immediately and act within any remaining window.
What Types of Evidence Courts Have Accepted as Sufficient to Reopen
Courts have accepted post-conviction DNA evidence as sufficient to reopen cases where the analysis excluded the convicted person from physical evidence central to the prosecution. Recantations by key prosecution witnesses have succeeded when accompanied by specific explanation of why the original testimony was false, supported by corroborating evidence of reliability, and when the recantation goes to the core of the government’s case rather than a peripheral issue.
Evidence that the government suppressed material exculpatory information in violation of Brady has also produced post-conviction relief when the suppression was discovered after the conviction became final. These cases are uncommon because they require someone with knowledge of the suppression to ultimately disclose it, which typically happens only when a government witness or official comes forward years after the fact.
How Post-Trial Petitions Are Submitted After Convening Authority Reforms
The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act substantially changed the convening authority’s post-trial review function, reducing their discretion to modify findings while preserving their authority to grant clemency in certain circumstances. Defense counsel processing cases through the post-trial stage must understand the current regulatory framework, which differs significantly from what applied to cases tried before the relevant amendments took effect.
Post-trial submissions to the convening authority should focus on clemency grounds that remain within their authority. Effective clemency submissions present the accused’s personal circumstances, the impact of conviction on the accused and their family, evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation or service, and specific grounds for believing that a reduction in the approved sentence is warranted. Legal arguments seeking modification of findings belong in the appellate courts, not in clemency submissions.
Habeas Corpus as a Last Resort After Military Appeals Are Exhausted
After military appellate remedies are exhausted, a convicted service member may petition a federal district court for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2241, which applies to persons in military custody, or 2255 for collateral attacks on federal sentences. Federal habeas review of military convictions is available but highly deferential: courts generally do not reexamine military justice issues that were given full and fair consideration within the military appellate system.
The grounds that are most likely to succeed in federal habeas are constitutional violations that were not adequately addressed in the military appellate process and newly discovered evidence meeting the applicable standard. Counsel pursuing federal habeas after military appeals must be familiar with the specific procedural requirements of the relevant federal district court, the applicable statutes of limitations, and the exhaustion requirements that govern when federal habeas is available for military convictions.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.