U.S. v. Corteguera, 56 M.J. 330

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Pretrial Punishment

1. although a pretrial detainee may not be subjected to punishment for the crime for which he is charged, he may be subjected to “discomforting” administrative measures reasonably related to the effective management of the confinement facility
2. even if “discomforting” administrative measures imposed upon a pretrial detainee are not reasonable, de minimis impositions on a pretrial detainee are not cognizable under Article 13, UCMJ
3. orientation procedures routinely applied to all persons being committed to the custody of the confinement facility did not publicly humiliate appellant to the extent condemned by case law; even if these orientation procedures were inappropriate for a pretrial detainee, they constituted de minimis impositions on a pretrial detainee for which administrative credit was not required
4. credit for unlawful pretrial punishment under Article 13, UCMJ, is not warranted each time a penal regulation is violated, and not all mistreatment of a servicemember awaiting trial requires additional sentence credit; singing and shouting out required of appellant and the sarcasm directed at him fell into this legally marginal category
5. reduction in rank is a well-established punishment, which unlawfully imposed, warrants sentence relief
6. the mere fact a pretrial detainee and a sentenced prisoner are assigned the same or similar work inside a confinement facility does not per se establish unlawful pretrial punishment under Article 13, UCMJ
7. the nature, purpose, and duration of duties performed by the pretrial detainee are determinative of their punitive intent; however, filling sandbags, washing and waxing vehicles, painting red lines, and doing yard work are not acts indicative of punitive intent, nor so onerous under the circumstances of this case as to constitute unlawful pretrial punishment
8. military judge was not required to give additional sentencing credit for the minimally discomforting treatment shown to have been administered by the military prison authorities in this case

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. whether an appellant is entitled to credit for an Article 13 violation is a mixed question of law and fact; factual findings will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous, but the ultimate question of whether appellant is entitled to credit for a violation of Article 13 will be reviewed de novo