U.S. v. Crawford, 62 M.J. 411

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Pretrial Confinement

1. Article 13, UCMJ, prohibits: (1) intentional imposition of punishment on an accused before his or her guilt is established at trial; and (2) arrest or pretrial confinement conditions that are more rigorous than necessary to ensure the accused’s presence at trial
2. if an accused establishes a violation of Article 13, UCMJ, then RCM 305(k) provides him additional credit for each day of pretrial confinement that involves an abuse of discretion or unusually harsh circumstances
3. in this case, the matters of record support two conclusions; first, the record contradicts the accused’s claims about lack of visitation and ability to participate in group activities; the record indicates he had numerous visits from his family and participated in group religious and counseling sessions; in addition, the accused’s broad claims of isolation and exclusion from confinement facility activities are discredited; second, there is a sound basis in the record for the conclusion that the accused presented a high risk of future serious misconduct including mass violence and physical harm to others; balancing these record matters against the accused’s post-trial declaration, and taking the unrefuted portions of that declaration as true, this Court holds that the accused has not met his burden of demonstrating a violation of Article 13, UCMJ
4. the accused appeared to have had access to money as well as weapons and explosives; thus, he presented a special security concern for confinement facility officials and, from the outset, the accused warranted heightened scrutiny; while the conditions of his pretrial confinement were stark, the accused has presented nothing in his declaration to refute the very strong indication that his was a unique case requiring special security considerations; once the government has exercised its conceded authority to detain a person pending trial, it obviously is entitled to employ devices that are calculated to effectuate this detention provided such devices are reasonable under the circumstances and constitutional; moreover, the accused’s failure to complain prior to his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals is strong evidence that Article 13, UCMJ, was not violated
5. arbitrary policies imposing maximum custody upon pretrial prisoners are not condoned; an appellate court will scrutinize closely any claim that maximum custody was imposed solely because of the charges rather than as a result of a reasonable evaluation of all the facts and circumstances of a case; where an appellate court finds that maximum custody was arbitrary and unnecessary to ensure an accused’s presence for trial, or unrelated to the security needs of the institution, it will consider appropriate credit or other relief to remedy this type of violation of Article 13, UCMJ
6. in this case, the serious charges against the accused, the potential for lengthy confinement, the accused’s threats and his apparent ability to execute those threats, his access to unknown quantities of weapons and explosives, and his professed willingness to resort to violent means against what he viewed as government oppression provide sufficient reason to classify him as a high-risk inmate; prison administrators should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security; an appellate court will not second-guess the security determinations of confinement officials under these circumstances; moreover, the accused has not provided specific allegations that he was treated differently from other maximum security prisoners
7. where an accused has failed to present the substantial evidence necessary to support his Article 13, UCMJ, claim, he has failed to sustain his burden of establishing entitlement to additional sentencing credit for a violation of Article 13, UCMJ

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

1. the question whether an accused is entitled to credit for a violation of Article 13, UCMJ, is a mixed question of fact and law; whether the facts amount to a violation of Article 13, UCMJ, is a matter of law an appellate court reviews de novo
2. the burden rests upon an accused to establish a violation of Article 13, UCMJ
3. because the conditions of an accused’s confinement relate to both ensuring his presence for trial and the security needs of the confinement facility, and because an appellate court is reluctant to second-guess the security determinations of confinement officials, the accused bears the burden of showing that the conditions were unreasonable or arbitrary in relation to both purposes
4. in dealing with post-trial, extra-record assertions of fact, an appellate court looks to the Ginn principles to determine whether it can resolve the issue without further factfinding proceedings; if an affidavit is factually adequate on its face but the appellate filings and the record as a whole compellingly demonstrate the improbability of those facts, the court may discount those factual assertions and decide the legal issue