U.S. v. Harris, 66 M.J. 166

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Burdens, Standards › Pretrial Punishment

1. appellant has the burden of establishing his entitlement to relief for pretrial punishment under Article 13, UCMJ

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Pretrial Punishment

1. appellant has the burden of establishing his entitlement to relief for pretrial punishment under Article 13, UCMJ
2. under Article 13, UCMJ, no person, while being held for trial, may be subjected to punishment or penalty other than arrest or confinement upon the charges pending against him, nor shall the arrest or confinement imposed upon him be any more rigorous than the circumstances require to insure his presence
3. 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
4. appellant failed to meet his burden to establish his entitlement to additional confinement credit for alleged improper denial of necessary medical care, where he was seen daily by medical personnel and did not express any concern about his medical care until he discovered and reported blood in his urine, and brig personnel took appropriate action thereafter
5. appellant failed to meet his burden to establish his entitlement to additional confinement credit for alleged unduly rigorous brig conditions beyond that already granted by the court of criminal appeals; the court of criminal appeals had granted him one additional day of credit for each of the days he spent in pretrial confinement because he had been placed in maximum custody solely based on the nature and seriousness of the charges against him, and the government had presented no evidence that he was a flight risk or that there was any risk that he would harm himself or others if lesser degrees of restraint were utilized

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Credits

1. appellant failed to meet his burden to establish his entitlement to additional confinement credit for alleged improper denial of necessary medical care, where he was seen daily by medical personnel and did not express any concern about his medical care until he discovered and reported blood in his urine, and brig personnel took appropriate action thereafter
2. appellant failed to meet his burden to establish his entitlement to additional confinement credit for alleged unduly rigorous brig conditions beyond that already granted by the court of criminal appeals; the court of criminal appeals had granted him one additional day of credit for each of the days he spent in pretrial confinement because he had been placed in maximum custody solely based on the nature and seriousness of the charges against him, and the government had presented no evidence that he was a flight risk or that there was any risk that he would harm himself or others if lesser degrees of restraint were utilized
3. in light of the assault offenses of which appellant had been convicted, granting him any further sentence relief would be disproportionate to any harm that he may have suffered from the fact that the additional days of confinement credit granted by the court of criminal appeals could not be applied because he had already served the full term of his confinement

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

1. appellant has the burden of establishing his entitlement to relief for pretrial punishment under Article 13, UCMJ
2. in reviewing pretrial confinement issues, an appellate court defers to the military judge’s findings of fact, including a finding there was no intent to punish, where they are not clearly erroneous
3. in reviewing pretrial confinement issues, an appellate court reviews de novo the application of the facts to the law and whether appellant is entitled to credit for violations of the law