U.S. v. Thompson, 68 M.J. 308

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Right to a Speedy Trial

1. when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment
2. because Article 10 imposes a more stringent speedy trial standard than the Sixth Amendment set forth by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972), Sixth Amendment speedy trial standards cannot dictate whether there has been an Article 10 violation

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

1. an appellate court conducts its analysis of an Article 10 claim review de novo, giving substantial deference to the military judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous

Miscellaneous Matters: Speedy Trial: Article 10

1. when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment
2. the procedural framework for analyzing Article 10 issues examines the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the accused made a demand for a speedy trial, and prejudice to the accused
3. because Article 10 imposes a more stringent speedy trial standard than the Sixth Amendment set forth by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972), Sixth Amendment speedy trial standards cannot dictate whether there has been an Article 10 violation
4. Article 10 does not require constant motion, but reasonable diligence in bringing the charges to trial; short periods of inactivity are not fatal to an otherwise active prosecution; in conducting its analysis, an appellate court should remain mindful that it is looking at the proceeding as a whole and not mere speed
5. the length of delay constitutes a triggering mechanism under Article 10
6. the 145-day period that appellant spent in pretrial confinement was sufficient to trigger an Article 10 inquiry
7. a pretrial delay of 37 days caused by confusion as to whether civilian or military authorities would prosecute off-post offenses and staffing issues in the trial counsel’s office did not violate Article 10 in view of (1) the limited period of time at issue, (2) a record that did not establish government indifference or substantial inactivity over the full course of the pretrial proceeding, (3) appellant’s delay in making a speedy trial request until 141 days after she was placed in pretrial confinement, and (4) appellant’s failure to demonstrate prejudice in terms of oppressive confinement, as reflected in the absence of pretrial complaints about confinement conditions and appellant’s subsequent entry into a pretrial agreement waiving any Article 13 claim for illegal pretrial confinement conditions

Miscellaneous Matters: Speedy Trial: Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy Trial

1. when a servicemember is placed in pretrial confinement, Article 10, UCMJ, provides that immediate steps shall be taken to inform the accused of the charges and to either bring the accused to trial or dismiss the charges; Article 10 creates a more exacting speedy trial demand than does the Sixth Amendment
2. because Article 10 imposes a more stringent speedy trial standard than the Sixth Amendment set forth by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 US 514 (1972), Sixth Amendment speedy trial standards cannot dictate whether there has been an Article 10 violation