5/30/2023 0 Comments Miranda garrison![]() ![]() Otherwise, any statement that he or she makes is not usable against them. But a service member always has the right to refuse to answer questions, and to speak with an attorney before answering those questions. So the standard TV Miranda warnings would be issued. And if the soldier is ultimately taken into custody, that would trigger Miranda So Miranda warnings would need to be issued and then they the service member would be instructed that they have the right to an attorney, and that if they could not afford one, one would be afforded to them free of charge. That is why there are the extra protections of Article 31 that don't exist under Miranda.Ĭan a service member ask for an attorney while he or she is being read UCMJ Article 31?Ī soldier can always ask for an attorney. Meaning, if you have a Drill Sergeant that is asking questions of a trainee, that trainee from day one is instilled that if Drill Sergeant asks you a question, you answer them. Generally speaking though, it is aimed at preventing superior officers or superior enlisted soldiers from asking a question of a subordinate, and that subordinate answering them feeling like they are obligated to answer because of their military service. What triggers Article 31 is that the person being questioned is a service member, and that the person asking the questions is subject to the UCMJ, or that person is a civilian law enforcement officer employed by the Department of Defense. And that any statement that he does make can and will be used against him in a trial or an administrative proceeding. The right that he's entitled to know what he's being investigated of or accused of. The right that he doesn't have to make a statement. And it specifically says that, "No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request a statement from an accused, or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of accusation, advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected of, and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court martial." Article 31 Bravo is what we typically think about when we tell a service member that they have rights under Article 31 of UCMJ. They will just about read it straight out of the book. What is the verbiage is for UCMJ Article 31 that would be said to a service member?Īrticle 31 Bravo. Article 31 does not have the requirement that a service member be advised of their right to an attorney. Once difference is that Miranda requires that a person be informed that you have the right to an attorney and to consult with an attorney before you can be questioned. As soon as someone that is subject to the UCMJ suspects you of committing an offense and asks you a question- you are entitled to have your rights explained to you. The triggers for Article 31 are much more broad and there's more protection. Article 31 is different, is always applies, period- it doesn't matter whether or not someone is in custody or not. Speaking very generally, the caselaw states that custody is the belief of the person that they are not free to leave the site of the questioning. The controlling law for most of our client’s is from military and the federal courts, some state courts as well. There is a lot of case law out there on what constitutes custody when talking about Miranda. Number one, Miranda only applies when someone is actually in custody. Question: What's the difference between the Miranda Warning and your Article 31 rights under the UCMJ? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |