United States v. Stringer, C.A.A.F. (2001)

UNITED STATES, Appellee
V.
Tracie D. STRINGER, Private
U.S. Army, Appellant
No. 01-0056
Crim. App. No. 9900211
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Argued May 1, 2001
Decided June 12, 2001
Counsel
For Appellant: Captain Kevin J. Mikolashek (argued); Colonel
Adele H. Odegard, Lieutenant Colonel David A. Mayfield, and
Major Jonathan F. Potter (on brief); Captain Daniel E.
Goldman.
For Appellee: Captain Steven D. Bryant (argued); Colonel David
L. Hayden, Major Anthony P. Nicastro, and Captain Daniel G.
Brookhart (on brief); Captain Susana E. Watkins.
Military Judge:
Gary J. Holland
This opinion is subject to editorial correction before publication.
United States v. Stringer, No. 01-0056/AR
Per Curiam:
A military judge sitting as a special court-martial
convicted appellant, pursuant to mixed pleas, of failing to go to
his appointed place of duty, willfully disobeying a
noncommissioned officers order, failing to obey an order, and
assault consummated by a battery, in violation of Articles 86,
91, 92, and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC 886,
891, 892, and 928, respectively.
The military judge sentenced
appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 80 days.

The convening authority approved the sentence and gave appellant
33 days credit against the adjudged confinement.
The Court of
Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence without

opinion.
This Court granted review of the following issue:
WHETHER THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED TO THE
SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY NOT GRANTING
CONFINEMENT CREDIT AGAINST HIS SENTENCE TO CONFINEMENT,
BECAUSE THE OFFICE OF THE STAFF JUDGE ADVOCATE FAILED TO
COMPLY WITH THE MILITARY JUDGES ORDER TO PUBLISH A
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DETAILING THE PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT
INFLICTED UPON APPELLANT.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision below.
Appellant was pending administrative discharge and was
transferred to his units holding detachment. On January 20,
1999, the detachment commander decided to place appellant in
pretrial confinement based on allegations of disobedience,
assault consummated by a battery, and assault with a dangerous
weapon.
The detachment commander ordered a unit formation for
the purpose of taking appellant into custody and placing him in

pretrial confinement.
Approximately 200 soldiers from the
detachment, as well as soldiers from appellants former company
and other passersby, watched as appellant was ordered to the

front of the formation, and the detachment commander read the
charges and advised appellant of his rights in a loud voice.
Appellant was then handcuffed by the military police in front of
the formation and led away.
As he was ushered into the military
police vehicle, appellant heard his commander announce to those

in the formation that assaults in the holding detachment would
not be tolerated, and that there had to be an answering for
appellants actions.
A military magistrate released appellant from pretrial
confinement 2 days later.
After appellant returned to the
holding detachment, drill sergeants in his unit sang cadences

about him, specifically ridiculing him by chanting, . . . now
hes on his way to jail.
At trial, appellant asked the military judge for 93 days of
confinement credit (3 days for each of the 31 days of illegal
humiliation and degrading comments from the date of his initial
custody until the date of trial), arguing that his units actions
violated Article 13, UCMJ, 10 USC 913.
The government counsel
conceded that the actions the unit took against appellant were
inappropriate.
The military judge gave appellant 31 days of
confinement credit against any sentence adjudged as remedy for

the pretrial punishment, in addition to 2 days of pretrial
confinement credit.
Moreover, the military judge ordered the Staff Judge
Advocate to have published in the post newspaper an article
which discusses the incorrectness of publicly humiliating a
soldier accused of a crime.
He further ordered:
The article will specifically address what occurred in

this case without mentioning the names of any party,
and discuss other examples of illegal pretrial
punishment as reflected in military appellate case law.
It will further address Article 93 [, UCMJ, 10 USC
893,] and how people who engage in illegal pretrial
punishment may, in fact, violate Article 93.
To enforce his order, the military judge directed that
appellant be given an additional 14 days of confinement credit if
the newspaper article was not published by the time the convening
authority acted on the case.
The military judge concluded his
directive by declaring, The actions that occurred in this case

are inexcusable, reprehensible, and cannot be condoned by any
court.
On March 4, 1999, the post newspaper published an article by
the Staff Judge Advocate regarding pretrial punishment.
The
article surveyed the decisions of this Court dealing with illegal

pretrial punishment.
It outlined appellants case as follows:
Illegal pretrial punishment has also been found where

the facts have shown: apprehension of a soldier at a
unit formation and reading his rights in a command
voice as he is handcuffed by the military police;
singing cadences about an accused soldier while a
formation is marching to chow . . . .
The article then cautioned: Pretrial punishment is illegal, even
if the chain of commands intent is only to deter other soldiers
from engaging in conduct similar to that alleged.
Finally, the
article warned that commanders and soldiers who take part in

pretrial punishment are subject to prosecution for violation of
Article 93 and Article 134, UCMJ, 10 USC 934.
Appellant submitted a lengthy clemency petition to the
convening authority under RCM 1105, Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States (1998 ed.), but he did not complain about the
adequacy of the newspaper article.
The convening authority took
action in this case on April 21, 1999.

Article 13 prohibits pretrial punishment.
v. McCarthy, 47 MJ 162, 165 (1997).
Pretrial punishment includes
public denunciation and degradation.

MJ 326, 330 (CMA 1987).
See United States
United States v. Cruz, 25
A military judge has broad authority to
order administrative credit against adjudged confinement as a

remedy for Article 13 violations.
See United States v. Suzuki,
14 MJ 491, 493 (CMA 1983).

Appellant contends that the military judge intended the
newspaper article to be an apology.
The Government argues that
the article fully complies with the military judges order.
We
hold that the Staff Judge Advocate complied with the order.
He
described the facts of appellants case, summarized the relevant

law, and cautioned that pretrial punishment is illegal and
punishable under Articles 93 and 134.
The military judge gave appellant significant confinement
credit, equating appellants maltreatment to pretrial
confinement.
inadequate.
Appellant has not asserted that this relief was

The enforcement provision providing for an
additional 14 days credit was not triggered, because the Staff

Judge Advocate complied with the military judges order.
Accordingly, we hold that additional relief is not warranted.
This Court also specified the following issue: Whether the

military judge had authority to order the staff judge advocate to
publish the newspaper article. In light of our disposition of
the granted issue, it is unnecessary to address the merits of the
specified issue. See United States v. McIvor, 21 USCMA 156, 44
CMR 210 (1972) (issue is moot if resolution would not materially
alter the situation for the accused or the government).
5
Decision
The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal
Appeals is affirmed.

United States v. Stringer, C.A.A.F. (2001)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Stringer, C.A.A.F. (2001)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Stringer, C.A.A.F. (2001)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

This opinion is subject to editorial correction before publication.

United States v. Stringer, No. 01-0056/AR

The military judge sentenced

appellant to a bad-conduct discharge and confinement for 80 days.

Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence without

The detachment commander ordered a unit formation for

the purpose of taking appellant into custody and placing him in

Approximately 200 soldiers from the

detachment, as well as soldiers from appellants former company

United States v. Stringer, No. 01-0056/AR

and other passersby, watched as appellant was ordered to the

As he was ushered into the military

police vehicle, appellant heard his commander announce to those

After appellant returned to the

holding detachment, drill sergeants in his unit sang cadences

The government counsel

The military judge gave appellant 31 days of

confinement credit against any sentence adjudged as remedy for

United States v. Stringer, No. 01-0056/AR

The article will specifically address what occurred in

The military judge concluded his

directive by declaring, The actions that occurred in this case

article surveyed the decisions of this Court dealing with illegal

It outlined appellants case as follows:

Illegal pretrial punishment has also been found where

article warned that commanders and soldiers who take part in

United States v. Stringer, No. 01-0056/AR

adequacy of the newspaper article.

The convening authority took

action in this case on April 21, 1999.

Pretrial punishment includes

public denunciation and degradation.

See United States

United States v. Cruz, 25

A military judge has broad authority to

order administrative credit against adjudged confinement as a

See United States v. Suzuki,

14 MJ 491, 493 (CMA 1983).

The Government argues that

the article fully complies with the military judges order.

described the facts of appellants case, summarized the relevant

Appellant has not asserted that this relief was

additional 14 days credit was not triggered, because the Staff

This Court also specified the following issue: Whether the

United States v. Stringer, No. 01-0056/AR

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.