U.S. v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

1. punishments violate the Eighth Amendment when they are incompatible with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, or which involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Lawfulness of Sentence

1. life without eligibility for parole (LWOP) was an authorized punishment for rape of a child under twelve years of age committed after November 18, 1997, the date upon which the President signed the LWOP legislation into law, even though the President did not make conforming amendments to the MCM until April 11, 2002
2. even if the military judge erred in instructing the members that life without eligibility for parole (LWOP) was an authorized punishment for rape of a child under twelve years of age, any error was harmless where the accused nonetheless faced a maximum punishment that included confinement for life, where trial counsel argued for a term of confinement of thirty-five years, and where, despite the Government’s argument for thirty-five years of confinement and the instructions that LWOP was an authorized punishment, the members returned a sentence that included only fifteen years of confinement

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

1. to support his claim that the conditions of his confinement violated the Eighth Amendment, appellant must show: (1) an objectively, sufficiently serious act or omission resulting in the denial of necessities; (2) a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials amounting to deliberate indifference to appellant’s health and safety; and (3) that he has exhausted the prisoner-grievance system and that he has petitioned for relief under Article 138, UCMJ, 10 USC § 938
2. in the absence of evidence showing that prison officials knew of and disregarded risks to inmate health or safety, appellant failed to demonstrate that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to confinement conditions that might have constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment

Trial Stages: Post-Trial Hearings: DuBay / Factfinding Hearings

1. an appellate court need not remand a case for factfinding if, under the principles in United States v. Ginn, 47 M.J. 236, 248 (C.A.A.F. 1997), it can determine that the facts asserted, even if true, would not entitle appellant to relief

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

1. an appellate court determines whether the facts alleged constitute cruel and unusual punishment de novo
2. a military appellate court applies the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment in the absence of any legislative intent to create greater protections in the UCMJ