A look at Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s Article 32 hearing

The U.S. Army is holding an Article 32 hearing in the case of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was charged in March with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for allegedly leaving his post in southeastern Afghanistan in June 2009. Bergdahl was a prisoner of the Taliban for five years until he was exchanged for five Taliban commanders being held at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many Republicans and some Democrats criticized the swap as politically motivated and a violation of the U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

The hearing will review the charges against Bergdahl and determine whether there is probable cause to conclude that he committed any offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, if he did, whether a court-martial would have jurisdiction over the case. The hearing began Thursday at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, where Bergdahl has been stationed since returning to the U.S. last year. It will resume Friday.

Here’s a more detailed look at the procedures involved in an Article 32 hearing and what happens afterward.

___

LIKE A MINI-TRIAL

Article 32 hearings are often likened to grand jury proceedings, but legal experts say they are actually more like mini-trials. At Bergdahl’s hearing on Thursday, military prosecutors presented evidence and called three witnesses — the heads of Bergdahl’s platoon, company and battalion at the time he went missing. Each spoke in detail about the difficulties involved in the 45-day search for Bergdahl and how his disappearance put the thousands of soldiers who searched for him in danger. Although nobody died because of the 45-day search, they said the soldiers got little food or rest, endured searing-hot temperatures and encountered more improvised explosive devices than they ordinarily would have. Bergdahl’s attorneys got to cross-examine each witness and will get to call their own and present evidence once the hearing resumes Friday. A preliminary hearing officer, whose role is similar to that of a judge, is presiding over the affair.

___

NO IMMEDIATE DECISION

After the testimony and evidence has been presented, the two sides will make their arguments about how they think the case should be resolved. Prosecutors could argue that it should go to a court-martial while defense attorneys could argue that the charges should be resolved by less severe means. The preliminary hearing officer will consider the evidence and lawyers’ arguments and will recommend a course of action in a report that could take several weeks to complete.

___

COMMANDING GENERAL

The preliminary hearing officer’s report will be forwarded to Gen. Robert Abrams, the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Abrams will ultimately decide whether to send the case to a court-martial, which is the military equivalent of a civilian trial. Abrams might refer charges to a general court-martial, which is reserved for the most serious offenses, or to a special court-martial, which handles offenses that would be the equivalent of misdemeanors in civilian courts. He may also dismiss the charges or take some other action, including discharging him.

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.