United States v. McPherson
2014 CAAF LEXIS 842
C.A.A.F.2014Background
- SrA McPherson convicted by a military judge of AWOL and drug-related offenses; sentence included an eight-month confinement and other penalties.
- He was initially confined 15 days at the Elmore County Detention Facility in Idaho, eight days of which were in an open bay with a foreign national (“The Mexican”).
- McPherson did not pursue administrative relief for the Article 12 issue before trial or appeal; the CCA and this Court considered exhaustion on appeal.
- The Government urged that Article 58, not Article 12, governs confinement in civilian facilities and argued for a harmonization that could render Article 12 moot in some civilian contexts.
- The Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief for failure to exhaust, and this Court certified and decided the issues.
- The Court affirmed the CCA, holding Article 12 applies to military confinement in civilian facilities in the United States and that exhaustion of remedies is required, with no conflict between Articles 12 and 58.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article 12 apply to confinement in civilian facilities in the United States? | McPherson argued Article 12 has plain, nationwide reach. | Government argued Article 58 creates a conflict or supersedes Article 12. | Yes; Article 12 applies in US civilian confinement with no geographic limitation. |
| Must a confinee exhaust administrative remedies before seeking Article 12 relief? | McPherson contended exhaustion should not bar relief. | Government argued exhaustion is required absent unusual circumstances. | Yes; exhaustion is required absent unusual or egregious circumstances. |
| Can Article 12 and Article 58 be harmonized without producing absurd results? | Literal reading leads to absurd outcomes given rehabilitative aims of Article 58. | They can be read to operate without conflict under pari materia. | They can operate together; no conflict established by the majority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. United States, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (exhaustion for Article 12 relief discussed; context from Article 55 guidance)
- Connecticut Nat. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 (U.S. 1992) (statutory interpretation—wording and context matter)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1997) (statutory interpretation framework; contextual analysis)
- Pena, 64 M.J. 259 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (Article 12 context in confinement; relation to Article 55)
- Ellsey, 16 C.M.A. 455 (C.M.A. 1966) (Article 12 confinement provisions listed among confinement requirements)
- Palmiter, 20 M.J. 90 (C.M.A. 1985) (Article 12 applicability to pretrial confinement; commingling concerns)
- Coffey, 38 M.J. 290 (C.M.A. 1993) (exhaustion prerequisite before judicial intervention under Article 55)
- Bartlett, 66 M.J. 426 (C.A.A.F. 2008) (statutory interpretation—avoid conflicting construction; harmony of scheme)