U.S. v. Adcock, 65 M.J. 18

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. an essential expression of the Constitution’s due process guarantee is the protection of accused servicemembers from punishment prior to conviction and sentencing

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Pretrial Punishment

1. Article 13, UCMJ, prohibits punishment prior to trial; the President has further addressed pretrial punishment in RCM 304(f) where he has directed that prisoners being held for trial shall not be required to wear special uniforms prescribed only for post-trial prisoners, and that prisoners shall be afforded facilities and treatment under regulations of the service secretaries
2. the plain language of RCM 304(f) prohibiting pretrial punishment clearly vests the service secretaries, rather than confinement officials, with the discretion to enact rules concerning pretrial facilities and the treatment of pretrial confinees; the service secretaries can make those regulations mandatory or advisory in nature
3. commingling pretrial confinees with post-trial inmates, without more, does not automatically constitute a violation of Article 13, UCMJ; however, service regulations can provide greater protections than Article 13, and, in fact, most services have continued to explicitly outlaw commingling of pretrial confinees with convicted inmates

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Credits

1. although RCM 304(f) prohibiting pretrial punishment does not grant confinement officials the discretion to disregard service regulations pertaining to pretrial confinees, it does not necessarily follow that pretrial confinees held in conditions that violate these regulations may assert an independent right to sentencing credit on that basis alone; confinement in violation of service regulations does not create a per se right to sentencing credit under the UCMJ
2. RCM 305 (k) authorizes the military judge to order additional administrative credit against the sentence adjudged for each day of pretrial confinement that involves an abuse of discretion or unusually harsh circumstances; the abuse of discretion language permits a military judge to award additional credit based on conduct by confinement officials during pretrial confinement that amounts to an abuse of discretion
3. a military judge’s discretion to award additional credit for abuses of discretion in pretrial confinement does not create an enforceable per se right to additional sentence credit; servicemembers may only enforce a per se right to credit by demonstrating an Article 13, UCMJ, violation
4. under RCM 305(k), a servicemember may identify abuses of discretion by pretrial confinement officials, including violations of applicable service regulations, and on that basis request additional confinement credit
5. confinement officials abused their discretion under RCM 305(k) when they knowingly and deliberately violated Air Force regulatory provisions designed to safeguard the rights of Air Force pretrial confinees by confining appellant, a pretrial confinee, in a civilian correctional facility where she was commingled with, and required to wear the same uniform as, the convicted inmates
6. violations of service regulations prescribing pretrial confinement conditions provide a basis for a military judge, in his or her discretion, to grant additional credit under the criteria of RCM 305(k); however, they do not independently trigger a per se right to such credit enforceable by the servicemember; accordingly, a military judge should consider violations of service regulations as a basis for pretrial confinement credit under RCM 305(k) when those regulations reflect long-standing concern for the prevention of pretrial punishment and the protection of servicemembers’ rights
7. administrative relief under RCM 305(k) is appropriate where confinement officials have knowingly and deliberately violated provisions of service regulations designed to protect the rights of presumptively innocent servicemembers during pretrial confinement
8. the military judge abused his discretion in denying the accused additional confinement credit under RCM 305(k) where the conditions of her pretrial confinement in a civilian jail violated several provisions of a service regulation concerning the corrections system and involved an abuse of discretion by confinement officials who knowingly and deliberately violated the regulations; moreover, the accused was prejudiced by this denial as it deprived her of 157 days of confinement credit; accordingly, she is to be credited with an additional 157 days of confinement served

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

1. an appellate court defers to a military judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous
2. an appellate court reviews de novo the legal question of whether the established facts and the violation of an Air Force regulation with respect to the conditions of appellant’s pretrial confinement entitle appellant to additional sentencing credit
3. when a violation of Article 13, UCMJ, is alleged, an appellate court scrutinizes the government’s 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
4. an appellate court reviews a military judge’s decision in response to an accused’s request for additional confinement credit for abuses of discretion by pretrial confinement authorities under an abuse of discretion standard

Miscellaneous Matters: Statutes, Treaties, Regulations, Executive Orders, Directives, etc.: Generally

1. one of the basic canons of statutory interpretation is that statutes should be interpreted to give meaning to each word