United States v. Kreutzer
70 M.J. 444
C.A.A.F.2012Background
- Kreutzer was convicted at a general court-martial of multiple offenses including murder and assault; the death sentence was set aside by the CCA but other offenses remained convicted.
- After the CCA set aside the contested findings and the sentence, the government certified the case to this court.
- Kreutzer remained on death row; Army officials kept him on death row despite the remand for retrial and sentencing.
- The CCA allowed rehearing on the set-aside offenses; a rehearing on findings and sentence was permitted.
- Kreutzer argued he was entitled to confinement credit under Rule for Courts-Martial 305 and Article 13, UCMJ, for being kept on death row after the CCA decision.
- The majority held Kreutzer was not entitled to credit because he remained a prisoner convicted of serious offenses, with confinement outside the scope of R.C.M. 305 and Article 13.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kreutzer is entitled to confinement credit after the CCA set aside his death sentence. | Kreutzer argues Article 13/R.C.M. 305 apply because he remained a sentenced or adjudged prisoner. | The government contends Kreutzer was not held pretrial; confinement remained within the scope of the adjudged prisoner. | Kreutzer is not entitled to confinement credit. |
| Whether Miller and Combs control Kreutzer’s confinement status. | Kreutzer relies on Miller/Combs to argue transitional confinement protections. | The majority reasoned Miller/Combs are not applicable to Kreutzer’s situation. | Miller and Combs do not control here. |
| Whether Article 13 applies when the sentence is set aside but the prisoner remains convicted of offenses. | Kreutzer contends continued confinement on death row is punishment or excessive pretrial confinement. | The majority held Article 13 does not apply because Kreutzer was not held for trial. | Article 13 does not apply in this context. |
| Whether continued death-row confinement violated AR 190-47 regulations or public policy requiring transfer. | Continued death-row confinement lacked a legitimate governmental objective and appropriate placement. | Correctional discretion governs placement, with some limited regulatory constraints. | No relief under Article 13; confinement within death-row context acceptable under governing regulations. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 47 M.J. 352 (C.A.A.F.1997) (application of concurrent 30-day periods and need for RC.M. 305 hearing)
- United States v. Combs, 47 M.J. 330 (C.A.A.F.1997) (plurality on confinement credit post-set-aside sentence)
- United States v. Inong, 58 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F.2003) (scope of Article 13 applies to those held for trial)
- United States v. Zarbatany, 70 M.J. 169 (C.A.A.F.2011) (Article 13 confinement considerations and credit)
- United States v. King, 61 M.J. 225 (C.A.A.F.2005) (two-pronged Article 13 analysis and conduct in confinement)
- United States v. McCarthy, 47 M.J. 162 (C.A.A.F.1997) (Article 13 pretrial confinement standards)
- United States v. Fricke, 53 M.J. 149 (C.A.A.F.2000) (articulates Article 13 prohibitions pretrial punishment)
- Moore v. Akins, 30 M.J. 249 (C.M.A.1990) (statute of limitations/finality without conviction context)