United States v. Coleman, ACM 39021

Appellant was arrested near Edwards AFB after two women (Ms. KN and Ms. JW) reported indecent exposure; police located and detained a man matching the description within ~60–90 minutes while he still wore similar clothing.
Ms. KN, a former Army military police member, was transported in a patrol car and—after being read a Kern County field identification admonishment—immediately identified Appellant when he was brought out of another police car (a field "showup").
Appellant was tried by a general court-martial, convicted of two specifications of indecent exposure (Article 120c) and one specification of false official statement (Article 107), and sentenced to a BCD, one year confinement, and reduction to E-1.
The military judge found the showup was "unnecessarily suggestive" but admitted the identification under Neil v. Biggers reliability analysis; the CAAF panel disagreed that the showup was unnecessarily suggestive and affirmed admissibility.
Appellant later complained on appeal that post-trial confinement at NCB Miramar involved inadequate medical care (including aggravated back condition and unaddressed PTSD). He did not exhaust prison grievance or Article 138 remedies.
The court reviewed the confinement claim de novo, found no evidence of unusual/egregious circumstances excusing failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and—based on available records—found no Eighth Amendment or Article 55 violation.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
1. Admissibility of pretrial showup identification	The showup was unnecessarily suggestive (one-on-one, suspect detained, obvious police custodial context) and should be suppressed.	The showup was necessary and reliable: prompt identification, suspect still on scene in same clothes, admonishment given, witness highly certain and trained.	Identification admissible; court holds the showup was not unnecessarily suggestive under the totality of circumstances and, alternatively, was reliable under Biggers factors.
2. Post-trial medical care / cruel or unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment / Art. 55)	Confinement medical care was inadequate, work detail aggravated conditions, PTSD untreated.	Appellant failed to exhaust prisoner grievance/Article 138 remedies; records show appropriate care and no unusual/egregious circumstances.	Claim denied for failure to exhaust remedies; on the record court finds no Eighth Amendment or Article 55 violation.

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (two-part test for suggestiveness and likelihood of misidentification)
Manson v. Braithwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977) (reliability is the linchpin for admissibility of identifications)
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 (1967) (totality-of-circumstances approach to due-process challenges to pretrial identification)
Sumner v. Mata, 446 U.S. 1302 (1980) (addresses reliability focus in identification admissibility)
United States v. Rhodes, 42 M.J. 287 (C.A.A.F. 1995) (definition of a showup and factors for assessing identification procedures)
United States v. Baker, 70 M.J. 283 (C.A.A.F. 2011) (standard of review for suppression rulings and application of Biggers in military context)
United States v. Lovett, 63 M.J. 211 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (standards for Eighth Amendment/Article 55 claims and exhaustion of remedies)