Public access to U.S. military courts around the world and information about current cases is woefully inadequate, according to a new study of the inner workings of justice in the armed services.

To improve access and basic information, the study calls for the creation of a Defense Department-managed docketing system for all military court matters that would be accessible to the public via the Internet.

"Our hope is that, at minimum, each branch will come up with a standard way of getting information," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a co-author of the study. "If that doesn't work, we'll consider bringing a suit in federal court."

Military courts are part of the federal court system and the public has the right to attend all proceedings, except those that could compromise national security interests.

But the yearlong study found that many military base officials set their own policies and often won't provide details about cases.

"By refusing to provide reasonable and proper notice of such proceedings through timely, objective and detailed court dockets, the military justice system has severely undercut a foundational tenet of American democracy," the study published this month concludes.

At Camp Pendleton, where a series of cases over the last two years involving the killing of Iraqi civilians at the hands of Marines have been contested, a media center and special Web site were established to assist reporters and the public in tracking those cases.

Not all hearings, however, are noted and reporters often must rely on defense attorneys to keep them up to date.

Aside from the Iraq cases, Camp Pendleton's weekly court docket, accessible through the base's Web site, often does not include all the hearings that take place in a given week.

Those that are listed lack specific detail of an accused service member's alleged crime.

A recent example of a critical hearing not appearing on the docket was a February court session for a Marine sergeant accused of manslaughter in the death of a corporal shot with a live round rather than a blank that was supposed to be used during a 2006 training exercise.

A base spokesman later said failure to list the hearing, which was conducted to decide whether the sergeant would be court-martialed, was an inexplicable oversight.

Calls to base officials for comment on the study and Camp Pendleton's docketing system were not immediately returned.

Ron Martz, a freelance journalist and president of Military Reporters and Editors, said consistency in access to the courts and basic information is paramount.

"Oftentimes, reporters and the public have trouble just finding out about a case and when and if a trial is going on," he said. "There have been too many instances of courts-martial going on behind closed doors."

An example cited in the study was the prosecution last year of Navy chaplain Lt. Cmdr. John Lee for sodomy and indecent assault committed against U.S. Naval Academy midshipmen.

Lee, who is HIV-positive, was charged in August 2007 but the case never came to light until a reporter for the Marine Corps Times newspaper learned of it through an acquaintance.

The Marine Corps prosecuted the case but it was never listed on a court docket and officials did not confirm the details until two days before Lee pleaded guilty on Dec. 6 of last year.

The study cites other instances in which ongoing cases never appeared on the docket and in which access to courtrooms was restricted or denied.

Neal Puckett, one of the attorneys for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, a Camp Pendleton Marine accused of nine counts of voluntary manslaughter and related offenses in the November 2005 shooting deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in the city of Haditha, said public access can be vital in guaranteeing that accused service members receive a fair trial.

"Openness does nothing more than enhance the whole process," he said during a telephone interview. "It is just as much of a right for the public as the accused. If the courts and their proceedings are always open, the people who run them are going to be more inclined to follow the rules."

A partner in the study, the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, tested public access by contacting 99 U.S. military bases around the world.

Seventy-five responded to researcher's inquiries, with 34 refusing to provide any information regarding upcoming court hearings. And only seven bases agreed to provide a defendant's name or specific charge.

Twenty-eight of the bases refused to provide a schedule of upcoming courts-martial, with 27 providing a complete docket, according to the study.

The Tully researchers also found that even when the public or reporters were aware of a hearing or trial, getting on to a base was problematic.

Most, including Camp Pendleton, require a name, driver's license and motor vehicle registration to gain access to the base as well as having an escort shadow them while on the installation.

In 2006, the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington asked each branch of the service to help create a complete docketing system for all military courts.

The services' legal branches rejected the request, saying it would be improper to team up with a private entity.

Institute President Eugene Fidell said the military needs to overcome cultural roadblocks to transparency in its court system.

"You don't hire the Goodyear Blimp to talk about how many people you have court-martialed," he said. "But (transparency) is part of running an armed force in a democratic society committed to the rule of law."

Dalglish said the study has been forwarded to each service branch as well as members of the House and Senate Armed Services committees, but her Washington-based group has yet to receive any responses.

"We are trying to pursue this administratively without having to go to the courts," she said.

The study and associated material can be found at www.rcfp.org/militarydockets/.

Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.