Can newly discovered evidence reopen a closed and final court-martial conviction?
- 5 paragraphs
- 1 table
- 3 references
Yes, through two routes with different limits. A petition for a new trial under Article 73 can be filed within three years after the entry of judgment, on the ground of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court; if the case is final, the Judge Advocate General decides it. After that window, the Supreme Court has held that military appellate courts can hear a petition for a writ of error coram nobis “to consider allegations that an earlier judgment of conviction was flawed in a fundamental respect.” Separately, a board for correction of military records can act on a court-martial sentence for clemency, but it cannot overturn the conviction.
Article 73: the petition for a new trial
Article 73: “At any time within three years after the date of the entry of judgment under section 860c of this title (article 60c), the accused may petition the Judge Advocate General for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court. If the accused’s case is pending before a Court of Criminal Appeals or before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocate General shall refer the petition to the appropriate court for action. Otherwise the Judge Advocate General shall act upon the petition.”
Two details from that text matter for a closed case: the clock runs from the entry of judgment, not from the verdict or the end of appeals, and for a final case the decision-maker is the Judge Advocate General, not a court.
The standard
R.C.M. 1210(f)(2) in the Manual for Courts-Martial (2024 ed.): “A new trial shall not be granted on the grounds of newly discovered evidence unless the petition shows that:”
- “The evidence was discovered after the trial”;
- “The evidence is not such that it would have been discovered by the petitioner at the time of trial in the exercise of due diligence”; and
- “The newly discovered evidence, if considered by a court-martial in the light of all other pertinent evidence, would probably produce a substantially more favorable result for the accused.”
For fraud, “No fraud on the court-martial warrants a new trial unless it had a substantial contributing effect on a finding of guilty or the sentence adjudged” (R.C.M. 1210(f)(3)).
The due-diligence requirement is on the petitioner. Evidence that existed and could have been found with reasonable effort before trial does not qualify, which is why the petition explains when and how the evidence came to light.
After three years: coram nobis
In United States v. Denedo (2009), the Supreme Court held: “Article I military courts have jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis petitions to consider allegations that an earlier judgment of conviction was flawed in a fundamental respect” (Denedo, 556 U.S. 904). The Court framed the request as a continuation of the case in the court that reviewed it, under Article 66. The writ is limited: Denedo recalls that the Court confined it to “‘extraordinary’ cases presenting circumstances compelling its use ‘to achieve justice,'” and notes that “an extraordinary remedy may not issue when alternative remedies, such as habeas corpus, are available.” The Court held “only that the military appellate courts had jurisdiction to hear” the request, leaving the merits for remand.
| Route | Time limit | Decided by | What it can do |
|---|---|---|---|
| Petition for new trial (Article 73) | 3 years from entry of judgment | Judge Advocate General, or the appellate court if the case is pending there | Grant a new trial on newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court |
| Coram nobis | No fixed statutory period stated in Article 73; available for a final judgment | Military appellate court that reviewed the case | Address a fundamental flaw in the conviction |
| Board for correction of military records | 3 years from discovery, excusable in the interest of justice | Service correction board | Correct the record to reflect reviewing authorities' actions, or act on the sentence "for purposes of clemency" |
The correction board’s limited role
Under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(f), for court-martial records, correction board action “may extend only to” correcting a record “to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities” or “action on the sentence of a court-martial for purposes of clemency.” A correction board cannot find the accused not guilty; it can act on the effect of the sentence, such as the discharge, as covered in whether a discharge can be upgraded years later.
Preparing a petition
A petition rests on the new evidence itself and on proof of when and how it was found: affidavits, documents, forensic results, or evidence of fraud such as a recantation. The ordinary appeal deadlines, which run much earlier, are covered in how long a service member has to appeal after sentencing.
Statutes and rules cited here were checked in October 2026.
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.