United States v. Barnett
2012 CAAF LEXIS 814
| C.A.A.F. | 2012Background
- Senior Airman Barnett, a USAF recruiter, was tried by general court-martial on multiple specifications for recruiter misconduct, dereliction of duty, marijuana use, and witness tampering.
- He was found guilty of Article 92 and Article 112a offenses and not guilty of one of the Article 134 offenses; the other was withdrawn, and sentence included reduction to E-1, eight months’ confinement, and a bad-conduct discharge.
- Barnett was assigned to the Thunder Pride holding unit while under investigation, prompting a claim for Article 13 confinement credit for alleged illegal pretrial punishment.
- The military judge granted 100 days of Article 13 confinement credit, determining it would offset any future confinement, despite defenses’ objections to instructions on Article 13.
- At sentencing, the judge discussed the Thunder Pride credit and provided a standard instruction that the credit would apply to any confinement adjudged, with no specific tailoring to Article 13.
- The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed; this court granted review to assess whether the military judge abused discretion in instructing on Article 13 credit and in response to a members’ question about credit treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the military judge abuse discretion on Article 13 credit instruction? | Barnett; instruction insufficiently tailored to Article 13. | Government; instruction adequate and properly tailored. | No abuse; instruction generally proper. |
| Did the judge correctly answer members' question about treating confinement credit? | Barnett; the answer failed to clarify no nullification of credit. | Barnett; answer addressed the question; no offset by extra confinement. | Answer adequate; did not invite negating credit. |
| Was the defense’s request for a tailored instruction improper to deny? | Barnett; should have instructed not to nullify credit. | Judge had discretion; instruction substantially covered. | No reversible error; discretion exercised within bounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ober, 66 M.J. 393 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (military judge has independent duty to tailor sentencing instructions)
- United States v. Forbes, 61 M.J. 354 (C.A.A.F. 2005) (abuse of discretion standard for non-mandatory instructions)
- United States v. Damatta-Olivera, 37 M.J. 474 (C.M.A. 1993) (tailoring of sentencing instructions under R.C.M. 1005)
- United States v. Balboa, 33 M.J. 304 (C.M.A. 1991) (instructional considerations regarding credit in sentencing)
- United States v. Pierce, 27 M.J. 367 (C.M.A. 1989) (concerning Article 15/Pierce credit considerations)
- United States v. Spaustat, 57 M.J. 256 (C.A.A.F. 2002) (legal nature of credits for illegal pretrial punishment reviewed de novo)
- United States v. Inong, 58 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2003) (treatment of relief on appeal for pretrial punishment where trial relief sought)