# UCMJ - calling a top officer as a witness **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 9, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077 "2011-03-09T19:13:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/1 "2011-03-09T19:13:54Z")
In _A Few Good Men_, there’s some dialogue to the effect that defense counsel in a court-martial could be subjected to military discipline if he calls a commanding officer as a witness but that testimony doesn’t lead to an acquittal. (Of course, in true Hollywood style, Jack Nicholson’s snarling on cross-examination ends up making all the difference for Tom Cruise’s clients). Is that an actual rule or DoD policy, written or unwritten? Sounds a bit odd to me, as well as a disincentive for defense counsel to zealously represent a client by going wherever the evidence leads him or her. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/2 "2011-03-09T19:29:46Z")
I think the problem was the ethicality of the line of questioning effectively accusing Nicholson of committing a crime without any evidence to back it up when Nicholson wasn’t on trial. It didn’t have anything to do with him being a superior/commanding officer. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/3 "2011-03-09T19:29:54Z")
It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the film, but was the testimony not leading to an acquittal the problem, or the testimony being determined to be not material to the case? ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/4 "2011-03-09T19:30:05Z")
In the movie, Tom Cruise’s character isn’t threatened with military discipline if he calls Nicholson’s character as a witness. He’s told by Kevin Bacon’s character, the guy prosecuting: > [@](#): > > I have an obligation to tell you that if you accuse Kendrick or Jessep of any crime without proper evidence, you’ll be subject to Court-Martial for professional misconduct. And that’s something that’ll be stapled to every job application you ever fill out. Markinson’s not gonna hold up, he’s a crazy man. I’m not saying this to intimidate you. I’m being your lawyer. And as Tom Cruise’s character puts it when his co-counsel suggests putting Jack Nicholson’s character on the stand: > [@](#): > > Yes. No problem. We get it from him. > (to SAM) > Colonel, isn’t it true that you ordered the Code Red on Santiago? > > I’m sorry, your time’s run out. What do we have for the losers, Judge? Well, for our defendants it’s a lifetime at exotic Fort Levenworth. And for defense counsel Kaffee? That’s right–It’s-- A Court- Martial. Yes, Johnny, after falsely accusing a marine officer of conspiracy, Lt. Kaffee will have a long and prosperous career teaching typewriter maintenance at the Rocco Columbo School for Women. Thank you for playing “Should We or Should-We-Not Follow the Advice of the Galacticly Stupid”. The problem isn’t putting anybody on the stand. The problem is falsely accusing them of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/5 "2011-03-09T19:38:42Z")
I suppose in the military courtroom when the brigadier general is being examined by the captain, the rules of a real courtroom apply? That is, the witness cannot be hostile or refuse to answer questions that will not incriminate themself or order the lower-ranking attorney to desist a certain line of questioning? Are there any privileges that come from rank when someone of a high rank is on the witness stand? ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/6 "2011-03-09T21:29:26Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > I suppose in the military courtroom when the brigadier general is being examined by the captain, the rules of a real courtroom apply? That is, the witness cannot be hostile or refuse to answer questions that will not incriminate themself or order the lower-ranking attorney to desist a certain line of questioning? Yes. As in a civilian courtroom, the judge is God. > [@](#): > > Are there any privileges that come from rank when someone of a high rank is on the witness stand? The privilege to lose a battle of wits with Tom Cruise. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/7 "2011-03-11T14:20:03Z")
IIRC, unless the officer is HIS commanding officer, he does not necessarily have to obey they order? An officer cannot wander in from another location and start giving the grunts orders that contradict their standing orders? Standing order for a military lawyer is “you will defend your client”, I assume? ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ucmj-calling-a-top-officer-as-a-witness/574077/8 "2011-03-11T14:30:48Z")
> [@md2000](#): > > IIRC, unless the officer is HIS commanding officer, he does not necessarily have to obey they order? An officer cannot wander in from another location and start giving the grunts orders that contradict their standing orders? Yeah, in general military personnel are supposed to take orders only from those in their chain of command (specific rules on exceptions vary, as usual, by location). An admiral is always higher-up than a lieutenant, but may or may not be in his chain of command: must be saluted but not necessarily obeyed.