U.S. v. Mitchell, 51 M.J. 234

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confessions

1. in deciding whether questioning by command authorities constitutes interrogation, care must be exercised to ensure that a suspect’s sense of loyalty, trust, and confidence in leaders does not obscure his/her legal rights under the Constitution and the UCMJ
2. totality of the circumstances will be considered to determine whether questioning by a representative of command is an interrogation
3. a command representative’s questioning of appellant violated the rule in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), where the individual asking the question: (1) was appellant’s work supervisor and military superior who was part of an official command visitation team; (2) was present when appellant exercised his right to counsel as part of his pretrial confinement rights; (3) knew of the offenses and that appellant had previously exercised his right to counsel; (4) was not a friend of appellant, but was part of a command visitation where military formality was maintained; and (5) had command disciplinary authority over both appellant and his victim

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Article 31

1. in deciding whether questioning by command authorities constitutes interrogation, care must be exercised to ensure that a suspect’s sense of loyalty, trust, and confidence in leaders does not obscure his/her legal rights under the Constitution and the UCMJ
2. totality of the circumstances will be considered to determine whether questioning by a representative of command is an interrogation

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. where evidence is obtained in violation of the Constitution and erroneously admitted, the government bears the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the inadmissible evidence did not contribute to the findings of guilty
2. erroneous admission of statement secured in violation of accused’s constitutional rights was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where: (1) the statement bore upon intent which was a key issue in the case; (2) the inadmissible evidence was a substantial part of the government’s case; (3) the government’s argument referred to the inadmissible statement as the best evidence of accused’s intent to kill; (4) prosecution’s circumstantial evidence of intent was challenged and less than overwhelming

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. where evidence is obtained in violation of the Constitution and erroneously admitted, the government bears the burden of showing beyond a reasonable doubt that the inadmissible evidence did not contribute to the findings of guilty