Court Opinion

ID: 9836827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:10.960532+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.005938
License: Public Domain

EFFRON, Judge
(concurring in part and in the result):
As I noted in my separate opinion in United States v. McCarthy, 47 MJ 162, 168 (1997), “the critical question under Article 13 with respect to an allegation of pretrial punishment is whether the facts demonstrate a purpose or intent to punish. . . . The findings of the military judge as to the historical facts that describe the events at issue may be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, but the conclusions of the military judge as to whether such facts demonstrate an intent or purpose to punish should be reviewed under a de novo standard as a question of law.” (Citations omitted.)
In the present ease, the majority states that it is applying a clearly erroneous standard of review as to the findings of the military judge on the issue of intent. However, the majority’s detailed analysis of the historical events reflects a de novo review. Regardless of the label that the majority appends to its analysis, I agree with its conclusion that the actions taken in this case do not demonstrate a purpose or intent to punish as those terms are applied to an issue under Article 13.