U.S. v. Simpson, 54 M.J. 281

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

1. the government has the burden of establishing compliance with rights warning requirements by a preponderance of the evidence
2. whether that portion of the rights warning requiring that the suspect be informed of “the nature of the accusation” was inconsistent with applicable rights warning requirements is reviewed de novo
3. in fulfilling the obligation of inform a suspect about the nature of the accusation, it is not necessary that an accused or suspect be advised of each and every possible charge under investigation, nor that the advice include the most serious or any lesser-included offenses being investigated; nevertheless, the accused or suspect must be informed of the general nature of the allegation, to include the area of suspicion that focuses the person toward the circumstances surrounding the event
4. among the factors to consider in determining whether a suspect has been satisfactorily informed about the nature of the accusation are: whether the conduct is part of a continuous sequence of events; whether the conduct was within the frame of reference supplied by the warnings; or whether the interrogator had previous knowledge of the unwarned offenses
5. advising suspect that he was being questioned about indecent acts or liberties with a named individual sufficiently oriented appellant to the nature of the accusations against him where the indecent acts and sodomy were sufficiently related so that the warning oriented appellant toward the nature of the accusations against him

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Motions to suppress

1. denial of a motion to suppress a confession is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and the trial judge’s findings of fact are accepted unless they are clearly erroneous

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Warnings

1. the government has the burden of establishing compliance with rights warning requirements by a preponderance of the evidence
2. whether that portion of the rights warning requiring that the suspect be informed of “the nature of the accusation” was inconsistent with applicable rights warning requirements is reviewed de novo
3. in fulfilling the obligation of inform a suspect about the nature of the accusation, it is not necessary that an accused or suspect be advised of each and every possible charge under investigation, nor that the advice include the most serious or any lesser-included offenses being investigated; nevertheless, the accused or suspect must be informed of the general nature of the allegation, to include the area of suspicion that focuses the person toward the circumstances surrounding the event
4. among the factors to consider in determining whether a suspect has been satisfactorily informed about the nature of the accusation are: whether the conduct is part of a continuous sequence of events; whether the conduct was within the frame of reference supplied by the warnings; or whether the interrogator had previous knowledge of the unwarned offenses
5. advising suspect that he was being questioned about indecent acts or liberties with a named individual sufficiently oriented appellant to the nature of the accusations against him where the indecent acts and sodomy were sufficiently related so that the warning oriented appellant toward the nature of the accusations against him

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Burdens, Standards, Presumptions, Inferences: Trial Burdens, Standards › Confessions and admissions

1. the government has the burden of establishing compliance with rights warning requirements by a preponderance of the evidence

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Motions, Generally: Burden

1. the government has the burden of establishing compliance with rights warning requirements by a preponderance of the evidence

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

1. denial of a motion to suppress a confession is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, and the trial judge’s findings of fact are accepted unless they are clearly erroneous
2. whether that portion of the rights warning requiring that the suspect be informed of “the nature of the accusation” was inconsistent with applicable rights warning requirements is reviewed de novo