U.S. v. Guyton-Bhatt, 56 M.J. 484

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

1. there is a two-prong test to determine whether an Article 31 warning is required: (1) was a questioner subject to the Code acting in an official capacity in his inquiry or only with a personal motivation; and (2) whether the person questioned perceived that the inquiry involved more than a casual conversation
2. Article 31, UCMJ, warnings are not required to be given by: (1) a military doctor, psychiatric social worker, or nurse prior to asking questions of a patient for medical diagnosis or treatment; (2) an in-flight aircraft crew chief prior to questioning, for operational reasons, an irrational crewman about possible drug use; (3) military pay officials questioning a servicemember about a pay or allowance entitlement; or (4) a negotiator trying to end an armed standoff, provided the discussion was truly designed to end the standoff, rather than to obtain incriminating statements to be used against the suspect at trial
3. military defense counsel may not deliberately seek incriminating answers from a suspect unrepresented by counsel without first giving Article 31, UCMJ, rights warnings
4. legal assistance officer who, upon being shown a promissory note, suspected forgery and felt appellant had committed a criminal offense, who recommended only criminal action, and who called appellant using the authority of his position to solicit information on the matter, was acting as an investigator in pursuing this criminal action and was required to give an Article 31 warning
5. (where nearly all of the information secured by a legal assistance officer in violation of Article 31 was introduced at trial through independent sources, the error in admitting appellant’s statements to the legal assistance officer was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
6. Article 31(b) would apply to a foreign interrogation only if it is shown that the foreign authorities were acting as an agent of the military during their interrogations of a suspect
7. under either a de novo standard of review or clearly erroneous standard because under either standard, the military judge’s ruling was correct because appellant did not meet his burden of establishing that the Icelandic investigators were acting under the control or at the direction of the Naval investigators so as to trigger a requirement for Article 31 warnings
8. limited assistance that NCIS agents provided to the Icelandic police in this case, such as locating appellant and American witnesses, was undertaken pursuant to the defense agreement between the two countries, and did not constitute “participation” within the meaning of the Mil.R.Evid. 305(h)(2)

Trial Stages: Appeals: Harmless / Prejudicial Error

1. where nearly all of the information secured by a legal assistance officer in violation of Article 31 was introduced at trial through independent sources, the error in admitting appellant’s statements to the legal assistance officer was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt