Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog
CAAF has issued opinions in:
United States v. Schubert.
Judge Baker writes for the majority, joined by Ryan and Stucky. Judge Erdmann wrote a dissent in part and a concurrence in the result and he was joined by the chief judge.
This was a government appeal of a speedy trial dismissal. AFCCA reversed the military judge. The majority affirmed AFCCA. Here is a piece from the dissenters.
This case presents two issues: whether Schuber’s base restriction constituted “arrest” for purposes of an Article 10, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 810 (2006), speedy trial motion; and whether the period of delay resulted in a violation of Article 10, UCMJ. While I would hold that Schuber’s restriction to base constituted “arrest” as that term is defined in Article 9, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 809 (2006), I do not believe that Schuber suffered prejudice based on the delay.
United States v. Zarbatany. Also an Air Force case.
Judge Baker writes for the majority, joined by the chief judge and Erdmann. Judge Stucky wrote a dissent for himself and Ryan.
We granted review of the following assigned issues:
WHETHER THE AFCCA ERRED IN FINDING THAT ILLEGAL CONFINEMENT CREDIT, AWARDED PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 13, UCMJ, CANNOT BE APPLIED TOWARDS A PUNITIVE DISCHARGE.
WHETHER THE AFCCA ERRED BY FAILING TO GIVE MEANINGFUL RELIEF WHERE APPELLANT HAD 445 DAYS OF ILLEGAL PRETRIAL CONFINEMENT CREDIT IN EXCESS OF HIS APPROVED SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT. (Emphasis added.)
The MJ had ‘awarded’ day for day PTC credit and an additional four for one because of Article 13, UCMJ.
The case was remanded to AFCCA. Basically CAAF holds that the credit could be considered toward the discharge, that AFCCA erred by not considering the credit properly, and gets a do-over.