Has waiver been mentioned before

Huuum, United States v. Viaud, for example.

​----------------------------

What does this mean when defense counsel also tells the MJ that the following term originated with the Defense:

[I agree to] waive all waivable motions except those that are non-waivable pursuant to R.C.M. 705(c)(1)(B). This waiver includes all of my previously filed motions in this General Court-Martial, and any motions for confinement credit for the time period when I was placed in [RILA] (sic)."

United States v. Hoko.

Does it matter if a motion for confinement credit under Article 13 and the Eighth was litigated and denied by the MJ?

Does it matter if the MJ says that "The Defense will file another request for confinement credit under Article 13 and R.C.M. 305(k) at a later date. . . ."

Er, nope

Relying on United States v. McFadyen, 51 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 1999) and United States v. Saurez, __ M.J. ___, No. 25-0004, 2025 CCA LEXIS 651 (C.A.A.F. Aug. 5, 2025), NMCCA holds that the waiver is effective. NMCCA also holds the term is not a violation of public policy even though that issue wasn't waived.

In the process, NMCCA writes that it will not disregard McFayden, because it is "poorly reasoned because it can't be squared with R.C.M. 705's prohibition on plea terms that deprive and accused of due process in light of Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).

(Nothing says the Defense can't bring up the RILA during sentencing as a mitigation on the confinement, and nothing to say the MJ can't "credit" that, the MJ just can't say it as an order. Although there once was an MJ who said that the sentence was five years, but because of the government's impropriety, on which he'd denied relief pretrial, he would have give seven years.)

Perhaps CAAF will grant to revisit McFadyen? Footnote 15 to Hoko refers to United States v. McCarthy, 47 M.J. 162, 164 (C.A.A.F. 1997) (“The question whether a pretrial prisoner is suffering unlawful punishment is of both constitutional and statutory concern.”); United States v. Palmiter, 20 M.J. 90, 98 (C.M.A. 1985) (“Apart from Article 13’s proscription, a pretrial detainee is constitutionally protected against ‘punishment.’”).

Compare United States v. Mar (AFCCA) involves a "waive all waiveable motions" provision in a PTA.
 
Even if assignment to RILA is a due process concern, constitutional issues can be waived?