## Facts

- Private First Class Aaron Gilchrist, a U.S. Army soldier, was transported to Fort Bliss, Texas, for an Article 32 investigation involving multiple alleged UCMJ offenses.
- Gilchrist arrived at Fort Bliss the evening before the hearing and required overnight detention.
- The installation detention cell was full, so officials placed Gilchrist in a barracks utility room for the night.
- Officials knew that, on a prior occasion, a detainee had escaped from that same utility room through a window.
- Although Gilchrist was not considered a personal flight risk, officials shackled him to a cot overnight to reduce the chance of escape from the utility-room location.
- At trial by court-martial, Gilchrist requested confinement credit, claiming the overnight shackling and conditions amounted to unlawful pretrial punishment or unnecessarily rigorous restraint in violation of Article 13, UCMJ.
- The military judge found no Article 13 violation and denied confinement credit.
- Gilchrist was convicted of multiple offenses and appealed to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA), raising the Article 13 credit issue and additional challenges, including claims about legal/factual sufficiency and unreasonable multiplication of charges.

## Issues

1. Whether shackling Gilchrist to a cot overnight in a barracks utility room, based on security concerns arising from a prior escape from that location, violated Article 13, UCMJ, entitling him to confinement credit.
2. How ACCA applies Article 66(c), UCMJ, when conducting de novo legal and factual sufficiency review of court-martial findings.
3. Whether certain specifications were unreasonably multiplied for findings and/or sentencing, and what relief (including consolidation) was available.

## Decision

- ACCA affirmed the military judge’s denial of Article 13 confinement credit.
- ACCA held the overnight shackling was tied to a legitimate security purpose (preventing escape from a location with a known escape history), not an intent to punish, and was not shown to be more rigorous than necessary under the circumstances.
- ACCA restated its Article 66(c) duties to independently test legal and factual sufficiency and applied those standards to the record.
- ACCA granted relief in part on unreasonable multiplication of charges, including taking corrective action such as consolidation and/or dismissal of specifications, and affirmed the findings and sentence as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Article 13, UCMJ, bars (1) intentional pretrial punishment and (2) pretrial confinement or restraint conditions that are more rigorous than necessary to ensure the accused’s presence for trial or to meet legitimate security needs.
- In assessing an Article 13 claim, courts examine whether the government acted with punitive intent; absent punitive intent, courts also consider whether the restraint was excessive in relation to a legitimate governmental objective such as security.
- Confinement credit is a remedy for proven Article 13 violations; the accused must show either punishment before trial or unjustified rigor in pretrial conditions.
- Under Article 66(c), UCMJ, a service court of criminal appeals conducts independent review of both legal sufficiency and factual sufficiency.
- Legal sufficiency asks whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could have found every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Factual sufficiency requires the appellate court to weigh the evidence in the record, make allowances for not personally observing witnesses, and decide whether it is personally convinced of the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Unreasonable multiplication of charges is assessed by examining whether charging choices unfairly exaggerate criminality or punitive exposure or otherwise create unfairness; where unreasonable multiplication is found, an available remedy includes consolidation of specifications (as well as dismissal or other corrective action as appropriate).

## Conclusion

United States v. Gilchrist, 61 M.J. 785 (2005), held that shackling PFC Gilchrist to a cot overnight in a barracks utility room did not violate Article 13 where the restraint served a security purpose based on a prior escape from that location and was not shown to be punitive or unnecessarily harsh; the court also described its independent Article 66(c) legal and factual sufficiency review and provided partial relief for unreasonable multiplication of charges while otherwise affirming the case as modified.
