[T]he Court notes that Appellant was placed in continuous restraint in a chair for six weeks during pretrial confinement with no indication that the Government’s conduct was undertaken upon medical advice, under medical supervision, or in accord with a medical protocol. Accordingly, it is ordered that Appellant file an additional supplement within 15 days of the date of this Order on the following issue:
WHETHER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING APPELLANT’S RESTRAINT IN A CHAIR FOR SIX WEEKS CONSTITUTE UNLAWFUL PRETRIAL PUNISHMENT IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13, UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE, OR OTHERWISE VIOLATE APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.
United States v. Hart, __ M.J. ___, No. 07-0828/AR (C.A.A.F. Feb. 27, 2008).
CAAF gave the government 15 days to file an answer and allowed the appellant to file a reply within 5 days.
ACCA's opinion doesn't appear to be on its web site.
CAAF's approach is interesting. Rather than simply specifying the issue, CAAF chose to solicit the parties' views before granting plenary review.