There is a new decision on the CGCCA web site, but it appears to be unpublished. United States v. Vanterpool, No. 1255 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. July 2, 2007), deals with a military judge’s denial of a motion for additional pretrial confinement credit due to the IRO purportedly shifting the burden on R.C.M. 305’s foreseeability-of-engaging-in-serious-misconduct prong onto the defense and saying nothing about the inadequacy-of-less-severe-forms-of-restraint prong. The Coast Guard Court ruled, “We have found no case holding, or even suggesting, that an IRO must mention every factor explicitly or articulate the full rationale supporting the decision.” Id., slip op. at 7. So, despite the rather minamalist IRO record, the Coast Guard Court affirms the military judge’s denial of relief.

Comments are closed.