U.S. v. Delarosa, 67 M.J. 318

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Double Jeopardy

1. constitutional and statutory limitations on former jeopardy are not at issue when, as in the present case, charges are pursued in a federal proceeding - a court-martial - after dismissal in state court

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

1. under Article 31(b), UCMJ, and MRE 305(b)(1) and (c), military officials and civilians acting on their behalf are required to provide rights warnings prior to interrogating a member of the armed forces if that servicemember is a suspect, irrespective of custody

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Evidence: Confessions and Admissions › Invocation of Rights

1. if a suspect provides an ambiguous statement regarding invocation of rights after Miranda warnings have been given, law enforcement officials are not obligated to cease interrogation
2. if a suspect’s statement regarding invocation of Miranda rights is ambiguous, law enforcement officials may attempt to clarify the issue of rights invocation, but they are not required to do so; they may continue questioning unless the suspect unambiguously invokes his rights, regardless of whether law enforcement officials have endeavored to clarify any ambiguity
3. if a suspect unambiguously invokes his or her rights under Miranda, law enforcement officials may not conduct any further questioning of the suspect about the offense unless they do so in a manner demonstrating that they have scrupulously honored the suspect’s invocation of rights
4. in assessing whether a person provided an unambiguous invocation of Miranda rights, the Supreme Court has stated that the invocation must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney or to remain silent
5. after answering “YES” to other Miranda rights-waiver questions, appellant did not unambiguously invoke his right to remain silent prior to questioning by civilian law enforcement officers concerning the death of his infant son when he inserted the word “NO” next to the question about whether he waived his rights and desired to make a statement, where appellant stated several times that he wanted to talk to the officers about his son’s death, where he indicated, when the officers attempted to clarify his “NO” response, that he would make a statement if a command representative were present, and where he then initiated a conversation containing a potentially exculpatory statement

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

1. based on the totality of the circumstances, appellant’s confession was voluntarily, where he was advised of his Fifth Amendment rights from a standardized legal rights advisement form on three separate occasions during the course of his interrogation, but never unambiguously invoked his right to counsel or his right to remain silent, where the atmosphere of the interrogation was not laced with coercion or intimidation and the detective’s tone was never verbally abusive or threatening, and where appellant acknowledged that no one had threatened him into making a statement and that it was a product of his own free will

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

1. prior to initiating interrogation, law enforcement officials must provide rights warnings to a person in custody
2. when Miranda warnings are required, the person must be advised of the right to remain silent, that any statement made by the person can be used against that person in a court of law, that the person has the right to consult with counsel and have counsel present during questioning, and that counsel will be appointed if the person cannot afford a lawyer

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

1. on appeal of a motion to suppress incriminating statements, an appellate court accepts the military judge’s findings of historical fact unless they are clearly erroneous, and it reviews the military judge’s conclusions of law de novo