Cells in the original U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, known as the “Castle.” (Source: U.S. Army)
Practice Notes
From Soldier to “Condemned Prisoner”
A Review of Modern Military Death Sentence Procedure
By Major Alexandria J. Altimas and Major Allyson J. Montgomery
In September 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth requested President Donald Trump to sign the death warrant approving and ordering the execution of Major (MAJ) Nidal Hasan.1 The military has not carried out a death sentence since 1961, when U.S. Army Private John Bennett was executed by hanging at the gallows of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.2 Since John Bennett’s execution over sixty years ago, there have been many changes in the rules and procedures related to the military death penalty. In light of the recent request for presidential action, all judge advocates have a renewed need to understand modern military death sentence procedure from referral of charges through post-execution.
Today, four prisoners sit on the military’s death row.3 In late 1986, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, while stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Specialist (SPC) Ronald A. Gray murdered two women, attempted to murder a third, and raped all three.4 After his arrest, he was tried and convicted at a general court-martial and sentenced to death.5 In March 2003, while stationed in Kuwait on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sergeant (SGT) Hasan K. Akbar stole four fragmentation hand grenades and three incendiary grenades from a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV).6 SGT Akbar then switched off the generator to Pad 7 and proceeded to throw the grenades into the tents where Soldiers were sleeping.7 After utilizing the grenades, SGT Akbar waited outside and used his M-4 rifle to shoot at the fleeing occupants of the tents.8 That night, SGT Akbar murdered two officers and attempted to murder sixteen other officers.9 In 2005, a general court-martial convicted SGT Akbar and sentenced him to death.10
In 1985, in Fayetteville, North Carolina, Master Sergeant (MSG) Timothy B. Hennis entered the home of an Air Force captain who was away on temporary duty, raped his wife, and murdered her and their two young daughters.11 In 2010, a general court-martial convicted and sentenced MSG Hennis to death.12 Finally, in the early morning hours of 5 November 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas, MAJ Nidal M. Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, opened fire on the Soldier Readiness Processing Center with a semiautomatic handgun, murdering thirteen people and attempting to murder another thirty-two people, many of whom were fellow Service members.13 In 2013, MAJ Hasan was convicted at a general court-martial of officers and sentenced to death.14
Pretrial Procedure in Capital Courts-Martial
There can be no doubt that the right to life is a fundamental right. It is found in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution: “No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law . . . .”15 Since at least 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has consistently reinforced the proposition that, because of its severity and irrevocability, the death penalty is qualitatively different from any other punishment.16 “Death is a different kind of punishment,” thereby entitling a capital defendant to a higher standard of due process and the strictest scrutiny before being upheld.17
In addition to continuously upholding the concept that “death is different,” SCOTUS has also consistently narrowed the category of crimes for which people may face the death penalty, and it has widened mitigating factors that preclude application of the death penalty.18 Therefore, for the military to deprive an accused of their life, there must be appropriate procedural protections and guarantees of due process.
The Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM) prescribes the rules that apply in all military capital cases. A capital case can only be referred to a general court-martial.19 First, the alleged offense must authorize death as an applicable punishment either under Part IV of the MCM or under the law of war.20 Additionally, a capital offense cannot be assimilated or tried as an Article 134 offense.21 Second, the Government must notify the accused, in writing, that the case will be tried as a capital case and what aggravating factors the Government intends to prove.22 For death to be adjudged, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt an aggravating factor, listed in Rule for Court-Martial 1004(c).23 One of the most frequently applied aggravating factors, as highlighted by the four prisoners on military death row, is that the accused intentionally killed more than one person in the same course of conduct.24
Third, in a capital court-martial, a conviction and death sentence require the twelve-member panel25 to unanimously determine: (1) beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the charged offense(s) that has death as an authorized punishment; (2) beyond a reasonable doubt that at least one of the aggravating factors exists; (3) any extenuating or mitigating circumstances are substantially outweighed by the aggravating circumstances; and, (4) that death is the appropriate sentence.26
When a death sentence is adjudged in the U.S. Army, the staff judge advocate (SJA) must notify the Criminal Law Division of the Office of the Judge Advocate General (OTJAG), Government Appellate Division, Defense Appellate Division, and OTJAG Personnel, Plans & Training Office that the Record of Trial (ROT) has been completed. This notification is required before the ROT is forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals (ACCA) clerk of court.27
Post-Trial Procedure in Capital Courts-Martial
After the conclusion of a court-martial that adjudged a death sentence as punishment, The Judge Advocate General (TJAG) forwards the record of trial to the Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) for automatic review in accordance with Article 66(b)(3) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).28 Article 66 provides the CCAs with jurisdiction over all courts-martial in which the judgment includes a sentence of death.29 Unlike cases in which death is not adjudged, an appellant with an adjudged death sentence is prohibited from waiving their right to appeal their case.30
The appellate process does not conclude with the CCA’s review of a death sentence, as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) conducts an automatic review following the CCA’s review of the case.31 Just as Article 61 of the UCMJ prohibits a death-sentence appellant from waiving their appellate rights, Article 70(c) of the UCMJ prohibits a death-sentence appellant from proceeding pro se on their appeal at either the CCA or CAAF if the Government is represented by counsel.32 The practical impact of this is unclear, as in accordance with The Joint Rules of Appellate Procedure, TJAG is required to designate appellate military counsel to represent the parties when the CCAs have received notice of an appeal pursuant to UCMJ Article 48, 56(d), 62, 66, 69(d), or 73.33 Appellate litigation for capital cases is a direct appeal under Article 66 of the UCMJ.34
After CAAF conducts its review of the case, a death sentence appellant may petition for a writ of certiorari to SCOTUS.35 If SCOTUS grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, the appeal moves forward, but if not, then the death sentence appellant’s appellate review is complete. The completion of appellate review constitutes final judgment and signifies a transition from the appellate procedure to the post-appellate procedure for the death sentence appellant.36 This transition is memorialized by the clerk of court for the ACCA, who certifies that the appellate process is complete.37
Post-Appellate Procedure in Capital Courts-Martial: The Transition from Prisoner to “Condemned Prisoner”
Once a prisoner’s case reaches final judgment, their sentence becomes ripe for presidential review of the adjudged death sentence pursuant to Article 57 of the UCMJ.38 In accordance with Article 57, the President is the only authority who can approve a sentence of death.39 At the point of review, the President may approve, commute, or remit a Service member’s death sentence.40 If the President approves a death sentence, the process for carrying it out begins. If the President disapproves a Service member’s death sentence, they may grant clemency in the form of a commutation or remission of the sentence.41 Such commutation may include reducing the death sentence to a confinement for a term of years.42
In tracing the progression of an accused’s status from Soldier to condemned prisoner, the military death penalty process reveals a system both deeply procedural and profoundly complicated.
Though the President is the single authority for approving and ordering the execution of a death sentence, they do not initiate the review. Instead, final judgment triggers a waterfall of responsibilities for the Secretary of the Army, TJAG, and the commandant of the USDB.43 Through these senior leaders’ actions, the death sentence makes its way to the President for review.44
The initial procedural responsibility lies with TJAG.45 TJAG collects the prisoner’s record of trial, the appellate records, including the certification of completion of appellate review, and any clemency petition for submission to the Secretary of the Army.46 TJAG provides these records, along with their recommendation on the sentence, to the Secretary of the Army for review and routing to the President for action.47
After TJAG provides the complete record of documents and their advice to the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Army’s procedural responsibilities begin. The Secretary of the Army serves as the executive agent for Department of War-wide Level III Corrections, to include the administration of death sentences.48 In this role, the Secretary of the Army provides the President with the relevant materials for review and effectuates the President’s action on the death sentence. If the President approves the death sentence and orders the prisoner executed, then the Secretary of the Army moves forward with their procedural responsibilities.49
First, the Secretary of the Army designates the method of execution.50 Though previous versions of regulatory guidance prescribed lethal injection as the method of execution, today, there is no designated method of execution.51 Since 1951 and the inception of the original UCMJ,52 the U.S. military has carried out ten executions, all by hanging.53 President Dwight D. Eisenhower approved the first nine executions, while President John F. Kennedy approved the last, PVT John A. Bennett in 1961.54 The first four executions were carried out by the military at Kansas State Penitentiary in Lansing, Kansas, with the remaining six occurring at the USDB.55
Currently, of the twenty-seven states that authorize the death penalty, twenty-three provide lethal injection as the only or primary method of execution.56 However, in the two most recent executions in 2025, the prisoners were allowed to choose the method of execution employed: South Carolina employed a firing squad, while Alabama used nitrogen hypoxia.57 For Federal executions, the method of execution is prescribed by the law of the state in which the sentence was imposed, and if no death penalty exists in that state, the judge chooses which state is responsible for the execution.58
Second, the Secretary of the Army selects the date of execution.59 The date of execution must fall within 60 to 150 days from the date the President approved the death sentence.60 After deciding on the method and date of execution, the Secretary of the Army selects the location of the execution.61 Though the USDB is often thought of as the single facility for the administration of military death sentences, the Secretary of the Army selects the location after receiving advice from the Provost Marshal General.62 One available location is the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, which is the location used for executions of Federal prisoners.63 By agreement with the Bureau of Prisons, military executions may take place at Terre Haute.64 The Secretary of the Army memorializes the location, date, and method of execution and transmits the memorandum, along with the signed Presidential death warrant, through the Provost Marshal General to the commandant of the USDB. This transmission triggers the commandant’s procedural responsibilities.
The commandant, USDB, serves as the execution officer responsible for the administration of the prisoner’s death sentence.65 In this role, the commandant formally notifies the Service member of the President’s decision ordering their execution.66 This formal notification completes an individual’s transition from prisoner to “condemned prisoner,” which will remain their status until they are executed.67 During notification, the commandant, USDB, is accompanied by a chaplain and the prisoner’s Trial Defense Service (TDS) or civilian counsel.68 The commandant is also responsible for developing an Execution Plan, establishing the Execution Watch Team (EWT), and arranging for the procurement of any materials or equipment necessary to conduct the method of execution selected by the Secretary of the Army.69
The notification of presidential approval of a death sentence not only begins the administrative process of preparing for a military execution, but it also allows a post-appellate death sentence prisoner to seek habeas corpus through the Federal court system.70 Latin for “you have the body,” habeas corpus allows a Federal court to analyze whether a prisoner’s continued confinement is warranted.71 Like state and Federal prisoners, a post-appellate death sentence military prisoner can file a petition of habeas corpus challenging the legality of their imprisonment.72
This challenge is different from a challenge on direct appeal, as a petition for habeas corpus provides post-appellate death sentence prisoners an avenue to attack their conviction based upon alleged violations of their constitutional rights.73 As part of their petition for habeas corpus, a prisoner with a presidentially-approved death sentence may request a stay of execution.74 If a Federal judge issues a stay of execution, it may last until the conclusion of the habeas corpus proceedings, thereby preventing the military from executing the prisoner.75 Habeas corpus proceedings may result in relief in the form of vacation of conviction or sentence, but if the proceedings result in no relief, the prisoner’s stay of execution is lifted and they remain condemned to death.76
Receipt of a presidentially signed death warrant also entitles the condemned prisoner to certain regulatory rights related to their execution. They may request pre-execution visitation of family and non-family members, in accordance with Army Regulation 190-47.77 The condemned prisoner may request chaplain support, legal assistance related to the execution and their final legal affairs, and medical assistance and counseling services.78 Further, they may request counsel of record and members of their family to be present at their execution.79
This electric chair, once installed at the original U.S. Disciplinary Barracks, was never used. When the old barracks was demolished, the chair was moved to the Military Police Museum at Fort Leonard-Wood, Mo., where it still remains. (Source: U.S. Army)
Once the execution date arrives, the EWT is responsible for the care, custody, and transportation of the condemned prisoner.80 The EWT will move the condemned prisoner from their cell to the execution area, leaving as little time between the movement and the execution as possible.81 After the condemned prisoner arrives at the execution area, the EWT will escort the authorized witnesses to the viewing area. Witnesses include the commandant, USDB, the prisoner’s counsel, the victim or one relative of the victim’s family, representatives from the condemned prisoner’s family, and members of the media.82 At the time of execution, the commandant, USDB, will read aloud the charge or charges, the findings and sentence of the court-martial, and information from the execution order.83 The commandant will next ensure the condemned prisoner is discharged from the Army.84 Finally, the commandant will order the execution team to begin the execution process.85 The medical personnel assigned to the EWT will monitor the condemned prisoner and announce their death.86 After the pronouncement of death, the commandant will announce that the execution is complete and dismiss all persons other than the EWT from the execution area.87
Conclusion
In the aftermath of the Secretary of War’s request for President Trump to sign MAJ Nidal Hasan’s death warrant approving and ordering his execution, it is important to understand that this step, which appears final, does not take the case out of the courts completely. In tracing the progression of an accused’s status from Soldier to condemned prisoner, the military death penalty process reveals a system both deeply procedural and profoundly complicated. The military justice system has built-in pre-trial safeguards, post-trial protections, appellate reviews, and ultimately habeas petitions, which may slow but not necessarily prevent an execution.
As is known and often cited throughout all stages of capital litigation, death is different. It is different in its finality. The complicated maze of capital courts-martial and the push for an accelerated timeline in MAJ Hasan’s case illustrates the intersection between the procedural process and the ultimate executive power of the President. As the country waits with bated breath to hear whether the President will approve MAJ Hasan’s death sentence, the legal community understands this change in status to condemned prisoner may just be the beginning. TAL
MAJ Altimas is an Associate Professor in the Criminal Law Department at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia. MAJ Montgomery is an Associate Professor in the Criminal Law Department at The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Notes
1. Filip Timotija, Hegeseth Seeking Death Penalty for Convicted Fort Hood Shooter, The Hill (Sep. 24, 2025, 19:06 ET), https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5520696-fort-hood-shooting-justice .
2. Ashley Fantz, A Look at the Last U.S. Soldier Executed by the Military, CNN (July 28, 2013, 16:15 ET), https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/28/justice/military-execution-soldier-profile https://perma.cc/CB3E-RCAY.
3. Blake Stilwell, The Only 4 Inmates on the US Military’s Death Row, We Are the Mighty (Feb. 23, 2024, 14:16 ET), https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/true-crime-military-death-row https://perma.cc/4KX5-3KES.
4. See United States v. Gray, 51 M.J. 1, 9, 26 (C.A.A.F. 1999).
5. In 1988, Specialist Ronald A. Gray was convicted of two specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118(1), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), one specification of attempted premeditated murder, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ, three specifications of rape, in violation of Article 120, UCMJ, two specifications of robbery, in violation of Article 122, UCMJ, and two specifications of forcible sodomy, in violation of Article 125, UCMJ, one specification of burglary, in violation of Article 121, UCMJ, and one specification of larceny of property of another person, in violation of Article 129, UCMJ. United States v. Gray, 37 M.J. 730, 733 (A.C.M.R. 1992). In July 2008, then-President George W. Bush signed and approved Ronald Gray’s death warrant. Barbara Barrett, Bush Approves Execution of Soldier, First in 50 Years, McClatchy DC (July 28, 2008, 21:46 ET), https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/article24493630.html https://perma.cc/SB8Y-WYUX. The U.S. Army scheduled Gray’s execution for 10 December 2008; however, on 26 November 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas entered a stay of execution. A new execution date has not been set. First US Military Execution Since 1961 Scheduled for December, Death Penalty Info. Ctr. (Mar. 14, 2025), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/first-us-military-execution-since-1961-scheduled-for-december https://perma.cc/65BS-TLLP.
6. United States v. Akbar, No. 20050514, 2012 WL 2887230, at *1–2 (A. Ct. Crim. App. July 13, 2012).
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. SGT Akbar, at a general court-martial with members, was convicted of two specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118(1), UCMJ, and three specifications of attempted premeditated murder, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ. United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364, 371 (C.A.A.F. 2015).
11. United States v. Hennis, 79 M.J. 370, 374 (C.A.A.F. 2020). In 1986, MSG Hennis was convicted and sentenced to death in North Carolina for the three murders. Id. However, after issues raised on appeal, his case was overturned and retried, which resulted in a hung jury. See id. In 2006, as a result of scientific advancements, the spermatozoa found in the rape victim’s vagina was tested and matched to MSG Hennis. Id. After recalling MSG Hennis to active duty, he was convicted at a general court-martial with enlisted members, of three specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118(1), UCMJ. Id.
12. Id.
13. United States v. Hasan, 80 M.J. 682, 691–92 (C.A.A.F. 2020).
14. MAJ Nidal M. Hasan was convicted of thirteen specifications of premeditated murder, in violation of Article 118(1), UCMJ, and thirty-two specifications of attempted premeditated murder, in violation of Article 80, UCMJ. Id.
15. U.S. Const. amend. IV.
16. See William W. Berry, III, Individualized Sentencing, 76 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 13, 18–19 (2019).
17. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 357–58 (1977); accord Akbar, 74 M.J. at 425 (Baker, J., dissenting).
18. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).
19. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, R.C.M. 201(f)(1)(iii) (2024) [hereninafter MCM]. An offense punishable by death may be referred noncapital to either a general or special court-martial except when there is a prescribed mandatory punishment beyond the punitive power of a special court-martial, like a violation of Article 118(1) or Article 118(4) where life or life without parole is mandated as punishment. Id. R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(A), R.C.M. 201(f)(2)(C)(i).
20. Id. R.C.M. 1004(a)(1).
21. Id. pt. IV, ¶ 95(a), (c)(5)(b).
22. Id. R.C.M. 1004(a)(2).
23. Id. R.C.M. 1004(a)(4).
24. See id. R.C.M. 1004(c)(7)(J) (“The accused has been found guilty in the same case of another violation of Article 118.”).
25. The accused may also plead guilty to an offense authorized to adjudge death, in which the military judge alone would convict the accused. See id. R.C.M. 1004(a)(3)(B). The sentencing portion of the trial would still require a twelve-member panel to unanimously find: (1) the aggravating factor(s) exist; (2) any extenuating or mitigating circumstances substantially outweigh any aggravating circumstances; and, (3) death is the appropriate sentence. Id. R.C.M. 1004(a)(4)–(6). However, in accordance with Article 45, an accused cannot plead guilty to an offense when the death penalty is mandatory. UCMJ art. 45 (2016).
26. See MCM, supra note 19, R.C.M. 1004(a)(4)–(6). In capital courts-martial, the panel must consist of twelve-members. UCMJ art. 25a (2016).
27. U.S. Dep’t of Army, Regul. 27-10, Military Justice, para. 28-2(f) (8 Jan. 2025) [hereinafter AR 27-10].
28. UCMJ art. 66 (2022).
29. Id.
30. Id. art. 61(c) (2022).
31. Id. art. 67(a)(1) (2021).
32. Id. art. 70(c) (2016).
33. See The Joint Rules of Appellate Procedure for Courts of Criminal Appeals r. 11(a) (1 Jan. 2019) (C1, 17 May 2024).
34. UCMJ art. 66(a)(3) (2022).
35. Id. art. 67a (2021).
36. Id. art. 57(c)(2) (2016).
37. AR 27-10, supra note 27, para. 5-65.
38. UCMJ art. 57(a)(3) (2016).
39. See id.
40. Id.
41. UCMJ art. 57(a)(3) (2016).
42. See Executive Grant of Clemency (Dec. 23, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/pardon/media/1382291/dl?inline https://perma.cc/2G7Q-E7VB.
43. See U.S. Dep’t of Army, Regul. 190-55, U.S. Army Corrections System: Procedures for Military Executions para. 1-4 (30 Oct. 2023) [hereinafter AR 190-55].
44. See id.
45. See id. para. 2-1(a).
46. Id.
47. Id.; AR 27-10, supra note 27, para. 5-65.
48. AR 190-55, supra note 43, para. 1-4.
49. See id. para. 1-4(a).
50. Id. para. 1-4(a)(2).
51. See id. para. 3-2.
52. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1951).
53. Military Legal Resources, Uniform Code of Military Justice (1946–1951), Lib. of Cong. https://www.loc.gov/collections/military-legal-resources/articles-and-essays/military-law-and-legislative-histories/uniform-code-of-military-justice-1946-to-1951 https://perma.cc/WY9U-MXJR (last visited Mar. 4, 2026); Historic Military Executions, Death Penalty Info. Ctr., https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/state-and-federal-info/military/historic-military-executions https://perma.cc/63QS-VAJ7 (last visited Mar. 4, 2026); Michael R. Wilson, Legal Executions in Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma Including the Indian Territory: A Comprehensive Registry 93–97 (2012).
54. Wilson, supra note 53, at 93–97.
55. Id.
56. Authorized Methods by State, Death Penalty Info. Ctr., https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/methods-of-execution/authorized-methods-by-state https://perma.cc/D6WQ-RWEY (last visited Mar. 4, 2026).
57. Oxygen contains seventy-eight percent nitrogen. Nitrogen vs. Oxygen, This vs. That, https://thisvsthat.io/nitrogen-vs-oxygen https://perma.cc/KFC4-5PQT (last visited Mar. 4, 2026). The process of death by nitrogen hypoxia involves requiring the prisoner to breathe 100 percent nitrogen through a full-face mask until they lose consciousness from lack of oxygen and die. Execution Method Descriptions, Death Penalty Info. Ctr., https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions/methods-of-execution/description-of-each-method https://perma.cc/V2WE-YEPT (last visited Mar. 4, 2026). On 23 October 2025, in Alabama, it took prisoner Anthony Todd Boyd approximately fifteen minutes to die from nitrogen hypoxia. Hayley Bedard, Alabama Execution Witnesses Report ‘Violent Thrashing’ of Prisoner and More than 225 ‘Agonized Breaths’ in Nitrogen Gas Execution, Death Penalty Info. Ctr. (Oct. 27, 2025), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/alabama-execution-witnesses-report-violent-thrashing-of-prisoner-and-more-than-225-agonized-breaths-in-nitrogen-gas-execution https://perma.cc/5TVA-2HC3. Alabama has successfully employed this method of execution eight times since its inception in January 2024. Brandon Moseley, Alabama Executes Anthony Todd Boyd, Alabama Gazette (Oct. 26, 2025), https://www.alabamagazette.com/story/2025/10/26/news/alabama-executes-anthony-todd-boyd/8647.html https://perma.cc/9V67-QG5Z .
58. 18 U.S.C. § 3596.
59. AR 190-55, supra note 43, para. 1-4(a)(4).
60. Id.
61. Id. para. 1-4(a)(3).
62. See id. para. 1-4(c)(7).
63. Lisa N. Sacco, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IN11474, The Federal Death Penalty 1 (Dec. 1, 2020).
64. In the case of SPC Ronald Gray, President George W. Bush approved his death sentence on 28 July 2008, scheduling his execution by lethal injection for 10 December 2008, at the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute, Indiana. Paul Boyce, Army Schedules Date for Execution of Pvt. Ronald A. Gray, U.S. Army (Nov. 20, 2008), https://www.army.mil/article/14393/army_schedules_date_for_execution_of_pvt_ronald_a_gray https://perma.cc/5NPH-45VY. This location was based on an agreement with the Bureau of Prisons. Id.
65. AR 190-55, supra note 43, para. 1-4(j)(1).
66. Id. para. 2-1.
67. Id. para. 2-1(i).
68. Id. para. 2-1.
69. Id. para. 1-4(j).
70. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
71. Habeas Corpus, U.S. Courts, https://www.uscourts.gov/glossary-legal-terms/habeas-corpus https://perma.cc/ZY9A-3LDQ (last visited Feb. 11, 2026).
72. Dwight Sullivan, A Matter of Life and Death: Examining the Military Death Penalty’s Fairness, 45 Fed. Law. 38, 41 (June 1998).
73. See Charles Doyle, Cong. Rsch. Serv., RL33391, Federal Habeas Corpus: A Legal Overview (Oct. 1, 2024). For example, a military death sentence prisoner may seek habeas corpus relief on the theory that military courts lack jurisdiction to capitally prosecute any Service member for crimes committed in the continental United States during peacetime in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments or that the military death penalty violates the evolving standards of decency in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Brief for Appellee at 6–10, Gray v. Horton, No. 18-03305-EFM (D. Kan. June 4, 2021).
74. Doyle, supra note 73, at 23.
75. See id.
76. Sullivan, supra note 72, at, 41; What Happens When a Writ of Habeaus Corpus Is Denied, Legal Clarity (June 26, 2025), https://legalclarity.org/what-happens-when-a-writ-of-habeas-corpus-is-denied https://perma.cc/V22C-2HJ8; Cong. Rsch. Serv., RS22432, Federal Habeas Corpus: An Abridged Sketch (2024).
77. AR 190-55, supra note 43, para. 2-4; U.S. Dep’t of Army, Regul. 190-47, The Army Corrections System (17 Mar. 2023).
78. AR 190-55, supra note 43, para. 2-7.
79. Id. para. 2-5.
80. Id. para. 1-4.
81. Id. para. 3-2.
82. Id. para. 2-5.
83. Id.
84. Id. para. 2-1.
85. Id. para. 3-2(b)(2)(b).
86. Id. para 3-2(b)(2)(d).
87. Id.