Yes, but with an important distinction that has changed in recent years: character witnesses play very different roles at the guilt phase than at sentencing, and what was once a broad “good soldier defense” is now limited on the merits. Understanding where character evidence still carries full weight, and where it has been narrowed, is what makes its use effective.
On the merits: only a pertinent trait
At the guilt phase, the rules permit character evidence only in a focused way. Under Military Rule of Evidence 404, an accused may offer evidence of a pertinent character trait, and Military Rule of Evidence 405 sets the methods, usually reputation or opinion testimony from witnesses who know the accused.
The key word is pertinent. The trait has to actually bear on the charged offense. This is where the law tightened: the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act and a 2015 executive order (Executive Order 13696) amended the rule to narrow the old “good military character” defense. General evidence that the accused is a fine soldier is now admissible on the merits only where military character is genuinely pertinent to the offense. As courts have explained, being a good duty performer is simply not pertinent to whether someone committed an offense like rape, so it cannot be offered for that purpose.
At sentencing: character has broad room
The picture is very different once findings are in. In the sentencing phase, character witnesses are a mainstay of extenuation and mitigation, where the defense presents who the service member is, their record, their service, and their potential, to argue for a lighter sentence. Here, favorable character evidence is squarely relevant and routinely used.
So the same witness who could not testify on the merits, because the trait was not pertinent to the charge, may be very valuable at sentencing.
How the attorney uses them
A military attorney therefore decides character strategy in two layers: on the merits, identifying any character trait that is genuinely pertinent and presenting it properly through reputation or opinion; and at sentencing, marshaling character witnesses to humanize the member and support mitigation. Choosing the right witness for the right phase is the craft.
Consider a member who wants colleagues to vouch for their character: on the merits the trait must be pertinent to the charge, while at sentencing such witnesses have far broader room.
What ties it together is that character witnesses remain a real and useful tool, but their place depends on the phase. The merits phase now allows only pertinent-trait character evidence after the post-2015 narrowing of the good-soldier defense, while sentencing leaves broad room to present favorable character in extenuation and mitigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an accused still use the “good soldier defense”?
Only in a limited way. After the FY2015 NDAA and a 2015 executive order, general good-military-character evidence is admissible on the merits only where the trait is genuinely pertinent to the charged offense.
How is character evidence presented?
Usually through reputation or opinion testimony under Military Rule of Evidence 405, from witnesses who know the accused.
Are character witnesses useful at sentencing?
Yes. At sentencing, character witnesses are central to extenuation and mitigation, helping present the service member’s record and potential to argue for a lighter sentence.
This article is general information about character evidence in courts-martial. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Application is fact-specific and the law can change. Anyone facing a court-martial should consult qualified defense counsel.
Sources