The military judge should, upon a showing of reasonable cause, grant a continuance to any party for as long and as often as is just. See Article 40. Whether a request for a continuance should be granted is a matter within the discretion of the military judge. Reasons for a continuance may include: insufficient opportunity to prepare for trial; unavailability of an essential witness; the interest of Government in the order of trial of related cases; and illness of an accused, counsel, military judge, or member. See also R.C.M. 602, 803.

See R.C.M. 405, 406, 406A. If the motion is granted, the military judge should ordinarily grant a continuance so the defect may be corrected.

See also R.C.M. 307. An amendment may be appropriate when a specification is unclear, redundant, inartfully drafted, misnames an accused, or is laid under the wrong article. A specification may be amended by striking surplusage, or substituting or adding new language. Surplusage may include irrelevant or redundant details or aggravating circumstances which are not necessary to enhance the maximum authorized punishment or to explain the essential facts of the offense. When a specification is amended after the accused has entered a plea to it, the accused should be asked to plead anew to the amended specification. A bill of particulars ( see R.C.M. 906(b)(6)) may also be used when a specification is indefinite or ambiguous. If a specification, although stating an offense, is so defective that the accused appears to have been misled, the accused should be given a continuance upon request, or, in an appropriate case, the specification may be dismissed. See R.C.M. 907(b)(3).

Each specification may state only one offense. See R.C.M. 307(c)(4). A duplicitous specification is one which alleges two or more separate offenses. Lesser included offenses ( see Part IV, paragraph 3; Appendix 12A) are not separate, nor is a continuing offense involving several separate acts. The sole remedy for a duplicitous specification is severance of the specification into two or more specifications, each of which alleges a separate offense contained in the duplicitous specification. However, if the duplicitousness is combined with or results in other defects, such as misleading the accused, other remedies may be appropriate. See R.C.M. 906(b)(3). See also R.C.M. 907(b)(3).

The purposes of a bill of particulars are to inform the accused of the nature of the charge with sufficient precision to enable the accused to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at the time of trial, and to enable the accused to plead the acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the specification itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes. A bill of particulars should not be used to conduct discovery of the Government’s theory of a case, to force detailed disclosure of acts underlying a charge, or to restrict the Government’s proof at trial. A bill of particulars need not be sworn because it is not part of the specification. A bill of particulars cannot be used to repair a specification which is otherwise not legally sufficient.

See R.C.M. 701 concerning discovery. See R.C.M. 703, 914, and 1001(f) concerning production of evidence and witnesses.

See R.C.M. 305(j).

A motion for severance is a request that one or more accused against whom charges have been referred to a joint or common trial be tried separately. Such a request should be granted if good cause is shown. For example, a severance may be appropriate when: the moving party wishes to use the testimony of one or more of the coaccused or the spouse of a coaccused; a defense of a coaccused is antagonistic to the moving party; or evidence as to any other accused will improperly prejudice the moving accused. If a severance is granted by the military judge, the military judge will decide which accused will be tried first. See R.C.M. 801(a). In the case of joint charges, the military judge will direct an appropriate amendment of the charges and specifications. See also R.C.M. 307(c)(5), 601(e)(3), 604, 812.

A change of the place of trial may be necessary when there exists in the place where the court-martial is pending so great a prejudice against the accused that the accused cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial there, or to obtain compulsory process over an essential witness. When it is necessary to change the place of trial, the choice of places to which the court-martial will be transferred will be left to the convening authority, as long as the choice is not inconsistent with the ruling of the military judge.

See Mil. R. Evid. 104(c). A request for a preliminary ruling on admissibility is a request that certain matters which are ordinarily decided during trial of the general issue be resolved before they arise, outside the presence of members. The purpose of such a motion is to avoid the prejudice which may result from bringing inadmissible matters to the attention of court members. Whether to rule on an evidentiary question before it arises during trial is a matter within the discretion of the military judge. But see R.C.M. 905(b)(3) and (d); and Mil. R. Evid. 304(f)(5); 311(d)(7); 321(d)(7). Reviewability of preliminary rulings will be controlled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Luce v. United States , 469 U.S. 38 (1984).

See R.C.M. 706, 909, and 916(k) regarding procedures and standards concerning the mental capacity or responsibility of the accused.