U.S. v. King, 61 M.J. 225

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Pretrial Punishment

1. Article 13, UCMJ, prohibits two things: (1) the imposition of punishment prior to trial, and (2) conditions of arrest or pretrial confinement that are more rigorous than necessary to ensure the accused’s presence for trial; the first prohibition of Article 13 involves a purpose or intent to punish, determined by examining the intent of detention officials or by examining the purposes served by the restriction or condition, and whether such purposes are reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective; the second prohibition of Article 13 prevents imposing unduly rigorous circumstances during pretrial detention; conditions that are sufficiently egregious may give rise to a permissive inference that an accused is being punished, or the conditions may be so excessive as to constitute punishment
2. this Court is reluctant to second-guess the security determinations of confinement officials
3. although the lack of complaint is some evidence that an accused is not being punished in violation of Article 13, UCMJ, the fact that a complaint is made does not necessarily demonstrate punishment or penalty; prisoners can be very vocal about their conditions without those complaints actually reflecting any unlawful pretrial punishment
4. commingling pretrial confinees with post-trial inmates is a factor to consider when assessing conditions of confinement, but alone it is not a per se violation of Article 13, UCMJ
5. a pretrial confinee held in a six-by-six windowless segregation cell for two weeks because of limited confinement facilities on base and the denial of a confinement official’s request for a waiver against commingling was subjected to punishment; the decision to confine this pretrial confinee in a segregated environment otherwise reserved for inmates with disciplinary problems was an arbitrary response to the physical limitations of the base; placing a pretrial confinee in a segregated environment with all the attributes of severe restraint and discipline, without an individualized demonstration of cause in the record, was so excessive as to be punishment and is not justified by the base confinement facility’s space limitations; an appropriate credit in this instance is three days of administrative credit for each day he endured solitary segregation; this credit is in addition to any other confinement credits to which he is entitled

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

1. a determination of whether an accused has endured unlawful pretrial punishment involves both constitutional and statutory considerations; this Court defers to the findings of fact by the military judge where those findings are not clearly erroneous; however, this Court’s application of those facts to the constitutional and statutory considerations, as well as any determination of whether an accused is entitled to credit for unlawful pretrial punishment involve independent, de novo review
2. an accused has the burden of establishing his entitlement to additional sentence credit because of a violation of Article 13, UCMJ