U.S. v. Williams, 68 M.J. 252

Military Justice Personnel: Military Judge: Discretion

1. military judge abused his discretion in failing to award additional confinement credit under RCM 305(k), where confinement officials violated an Air Force regulation requiring medical authorities to review a detainee’s “suicide watch” status every 24 hours to determine if continued segregation was appropriate
2. military judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding one-for-one pretrial confinement credit under Article 13, UCMJ, where an alternative basis for confinement credit could have been based on RCM 305(k); while RCM 305(k) could have provided an alternative basis for relief, the factual basis for credit under either Article 13, UCMJ, or RCM 305(k) under the facts of this case was the same conduct on the part of the confinement officials

Trial Stages: Pretrial: Pretrial Punishment

1. RCM 305(k) provides an independent basis for the award of additional confinement credit where there has been a violation of service regulations when those regulations reflect long-standing concern for the prevention of pretrial punishment and the protection of servicemembers’ rights
2. administrative relief under R.C.M. 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
3. military judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding one-for-one pretrial confinement credit under Article 13, UCMJ, where an alternative basis for confinement credit could have been based on RCM 305(k); while RCM 305(k) could have provided an alternative basis for relief, the factual basis for credit under either Article 13, UCMJ, or RCM 305(k) under the facts of this case was the same conduct on the part of the confinement officials
4. Article 13, UCMJ, prohibits the imposition of punishment prior to trial; alleged violations of Article 13, UCMJ, require scrutinizing 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
5. appellant was not entitled to additional sentencing credit based on conditions of his pretrial confinement while he was on “suicide watch” status, beyond the one-for-one credit he was awarded by the military judge for that period; although appellant was denied books, a radio, and CD player, was subjected to 24-hour lighting, and was required to wear a suicide gown, those conditions were directly related to his “suicide watch” status, were considered by the military judge in his decision on credit, did not show an intent to punish, and served a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental objective

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Credits

1. confinement in violation of service regulations does not create a per se right to sentencing credit under the UCMJ; this rule reflects the long-standing principle that not all violations of law result in individually enforceable remedies; however, under RCM 305(k), a servicemember may identify abuses of discretion by pretrial confinement authorities, including violations of applicable service regulations, and on that basis request confinement credit
2. appellant, who was placed on “suicide watch” while he was held in pretrial confinement, was entitled to sentencing credit for the period where confinement officials violated an Air Force regulation requiring medical authorities to review a detainee’s “suicide watch” status every 24 hours to determine if continued segregation was appropriate; the regulation was designed to protect the personal liberties and interests of individuals who had been placed on “suicide watch” status to ensure that they will be removed from the additional restrictive conditions as soon as medically appropriate; the failure of the confinement officials to abide by the requirements of the regulation constituted an abuse of discretion that adversely impacted appellant’s personal liberty or interests
3. RCM 305(k) provides an independent basis for the award of additional confinement credit where there has been a violation of service regulations when those regulations reflect long-standing concern for the prevention of pretrial punishment and the protection of servicemembers’ rights
4. 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
5. it is well-settled that a government agency must abide by its own rules and regulations where the underlying purpose of such regulations is the protection of personal liberties or interests
6. under RCM 305(k), a servicemember may identify abuses of discretion by pretrial confinement authorities, including violations of applicable service regulations, and on that basis request additional confinement credit
7. military judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding one-for-one pretrial confinement credit under Article 13, UCMJ, where an alternative basis for confinement credit could have been based on RCM 305(k); while RCM 305(k) could have provided an alternative basis for relief, the factual basis for credit under either Article 13, UCMJ, or RCM 305(k) under the facts of this case was the same conduct on the part of the confinement officials
8. appellant was not entitled to additional sentencing credit based on conditions of his pretrial confinement while he was on “suicide watch” status, beyond the one-for-one credit he was awarded by the military judge for that period; although appellant was denied books, a radio, and CD player, was subjected to 24-hour lighting, and was required to wear a suicide gown, those conditions were directly related to his “suicide watch” status, were considered by the military judge in his decision on credit, did not show an intent to punish, and served a legitimate, nonpunitive governmental objective

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 as to whether the established facts and the violation of an Air Force regulation entitled appellant to additional confinement credit under RCM 305(k)

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

1. it is well-settled that a government agency must abide by its own rules and regulations where the underlying purpose of such regulations is the protection of personal liberties or interests