U.S. v. Chatfield, 67 M.J. 432

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Confessions

1. the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
2. while Miranda warnings provide procedural safeguards to secure the right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an accused generally against the admission of any involuntary statements, whether made in or out of custody

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Due Process

1. while Miranda warnings provide procedural safeguards to secure the right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an accused generally against the admission of any involuntary statements, whether made in or out of custody

Core Criminal Law Subjects: Crimes: Article 134 -- Assault, Indecent Pre-2019 offenses

1. the elements of indecent assault under Article 134, UCMJ, are that: (1) the accused assaulted a person; (2) the act was done to gratify sexual desires; and (3) the conduct was prejudicial to good order or of a nature to bring discredit to the armed forces
2. the evidence produced by the government at trial was legally sufficient to prove appellant digitally penetrated the victim with the intent to gratify his sexual desires, where appellant admitted that he rubbed his victim down below and might have penetrated her, where the victim woke on a bed to find appellant behind her and her underwear pulled down around her knees, where the victim felt like she had been penetrated, and where another witness saw appellant grabbing the victim’s breast, saw movement under the covers around the victim’s waist, and saw appellant turn away and button his pants after the victim awoke

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

1. the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the accused unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination; the safeguards must take the form of specific warnings – prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed
2. while Miranda warnings provide procedural safeguards to secure the right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an accused generally against the admission of any involuntary statements, whether made in or out of custody
3. where the events leading up to and taking place during the civilian police interview of appellant created neither a custodial situation in which Miranda warnings were required nor a coercive setting in which appellant’s will was overborne, appellant’s statements to the officer were given voluntarily, and, as such, the military judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting them

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

1. by its terms, Article 31(b), UCMJ, only applies when a member of the military interrogates, or requests any statement from, an accused or a person suspected of an offense

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

1. while Miranda warnings provide procedural safeguards to secure the right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogations, the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect an accused generally against the admission of any involuntary statements, whether made in or out of custody
2. when introducing a confession, the government has the burden of showing the confession is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker
3. based on the totality of the circumstances, appellant’s statements to a civilian police officer were voluntary, where appellant was an experienced Naval officer, where he was neither ordered by military officers to go to the police station or to give a statement once there, where the civilian police officer did not use any overreaching tactics and was not accusatory, and where the interview with the civilian police officer was short and undertaken with the expectation that appellant would be free to have dinner with other military officers after it was over

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

1. the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the accused unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination; the safeguards must take the form of specific warnings – prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed
2. custodial interrogation is defined as questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way; to answer the question whether an accused is in custody for purposes of Miranda, all of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation are considered to determine how a reasonable person in the position of the accused would gauge the breadth of his or her freedom of action; two inquiries are essential to a custody determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave; the facts are considered objectively in the context of a reasonable person’s perception when situated in the accused’s position
3. to be considered in custody for purposes of Miranda, a reasonable person in appellant’s position must have believed he was restrained in a formal arrest or that his freedom of movement was restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest; as an initial matter, there is no per se rule that whenever a suspect appears at a police station for questioning, the suspect is therefore in custody; several factors are looked at when determining whether a person has been restrained, including: (1) whether the person appeared for questioning voluntarily; (2) the location and atmosphere of the place in which questioning occurred; (3) the length of the questioning; (4) the number of law enforcement officers present at the scene; and (5) the degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect
4. appellant was not in custody such that Miranda warnings were required when several military officers accompanied him to a civilian police station and when he gave a statement to a civilian police officer at that station, where under the circumstances, appellant appeared for questioning voluntarily and where a reasonable person in appellant’s situation at the police station would have realized that he was free to leave and would not have believed he was subject to a formal arrest or restraint; in this case, the military officers did not order appellant to go to the police station or to answer questions; and at the time of the interview with the civilian police officer, there were no other police officers at the station, plans had been made between the military officers and the police officer for returning appellant to the officers for dinner, the interview occurred in an office rather than in an interrogation room, the interview was short, the interview was conducted with the office door open, appellant was neither handcuffed nor told he could not leave; and appellant admitted that the police officer was not accusatory

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

1. the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the accused unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination; the safeguards must take the form of specific warnings – prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed
2. when introducing a confession, the government has the burden of showing the confession is the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker

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

1. a military judge’s denial of a motion to suppress a confession is reviewed for an abuse of discretion
2. an appellate court will not disturb a military judge’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record
3. an appellate court reviews de novo any conclusions of law supporting the suppression ruling on a confession, including: (1) whether someone is in custody for the purposes of Miranda warnings; or (2) whether a confession is involuntary
4. in determining whether a confession was voluntary, an appellate court reviews the totality of the circumstances to determine whether appellant’s will was overborne and his capacity for self-determination was critically impaired; the factors to consider include both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation
5. an appellate court grants deference to a military judge’s determination that appellant’s testimony was not believable because the judge is in a unique position to decide the appropriate weight to give that testimony
6. an appellate court reviews questions of legal sufficiency de novo; the test for legal sufficiency is whether, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a reasonable factfinder could have found all the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt