United States v. Wilson
2014 CCA LEXIS 59
A.F.C.C.A.2014Background
- TSgt Jimmy L. Wilson was convicted at a general court-martial (21 Jan 2011) and sentenced to a bad-conduct discharge, 3 months confinement, and reduction to E-2; convening authority approved the sentence.
- Because Moody AFB had no military confinement, Wilson served his confinement in Cook County Jail (a civilian facility) and was segregated from general population, reportedly ~23 hours/day in isolation.
- Record evidence (jail admin affidavit) indicated Cook County Jail lacked a system to identify foreign nationals and therefore placed Moody inmates in isolation to avoid mixing with foreign nationals.
- Wilson originally claimed his segregation constituted cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment/Art. 55) and appealed; this court initially rejected that claim but the CAAF remanded a narrow question about Article 12 (Art. 12, UCMJ) application.
- On remand the Air Force CCA held that Article 12 (prohibiting confinement of service members in immediate association with enemy prisoners or other foreign nationals) applies "everyplace," including state/federal facilities within the continental U.S., but denied relief to Wilson because he never alleged or administratively exhausted an Art. 12 claim and was not shown to have been in immediate association with foreign nationals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Art. 12, UCMJ apply to military members confined in state/federal facilities within the continental U.S.? | Art. 12 should not reach confinement inside the U.S.; original Art. of War language had an overseas limitation. | Art. 12’s plain text has no geographic limit; legislative history shows drafters intended it to apply "everyplace." | Art. 12 applies to confinement "everyplace," including continental U.S. facilities. |
| Does Art. 58(a) (same discipline/treatment in civilian institutions) negate Art. 12 protections for military prisoners in non-military custody? | Art. 58(a)’s same-treatment rule means Art. 12 is trumped when confinement is in civilian institutions. | Art. 12 is a specific prohibition and prevails over the general rule in Art. 58(a); also Art. 12 protects those still subject to the UCMJ. | Art. 58(a) does not nullify Art. 12; the specific (Art. 12) governs the general (Art. 58(a)). |
| Did Wilson’s confinement violate Art. 12? | Wilson argued segregation amounted to an Art. 12 issue (and Eighth Amendment harm). | Government showed segregation prevented any immediate association with foreign nationals. | No Art. 12 violation shown; record contains no allegation or evidence Wilson was in immediate association with foreign nationals and he did not administratively exhaust Art. 12 remedies. |
| Is appellate relief warranted for alleged Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual) conditions on remand? | Wilson sought to renew his Eighth Amendment claim based on segregation. | Remand limited to Art. 12 issue; appellate court should not revisit Eighth Amendment on remand. | Court refused to revisit Eighth Amendment claim because remand was limited to Art. 12; earlier ruling denying Eighth Amendment relief stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Wise, 64 M.J. 468 (C.A.A.F. 2007) (standards for Art. 12/post-trial confinement review and administrative exhaustion)
- United States v. White, 54 M.J. 469 (C.A.A.F. 2001) (administrative exhaustion requirement for post-trial confinement complaints)
- United States v. Miller, 46 M.J. 248 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (administrative exhaustion and record development goals)
- United States v. Reed, 54 M.J. 37 (C.A.A.F. 2000) (appellate review standards applicable to findings and sentence)
- Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374 (1992) (canon: specific statute governs over general)