Constitution Category Archives — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog Published by International Military Lawyer

Right to Remain Silent

September 12, 2024 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

As a trial and appellate lawyer, I pay attention to word and phrase choices because of the potential effect on the reader or listener. You may be familiar with the saying, ‘it’s not what you say (write) but what the other person hears (reads).’ The point is that the listener may interpret what you have said differently and perhaps adversely. “The same phrase said in different ways can mean very different things. That is partly because perception is reality. So even if you say something that feels sincere to you, the person could hear it completely differently, and that becomes their reality.

James J. Duane, reminds us of the need to pay attention to word choice in his article, “The Right to Remain Silent: A New Answer to an Old Question.”

There is no official language that a witness is required to employ when invoking the privilege against self-incrimination. As one federal circuit court recently observed, “A witness’s answer could range from ‘I refuse to answer on the ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me’ to the more mundane ‘On the advice of counsel, I decline to answer.’” Evans v. City of Chicago, 513 F.3d 735, 740 n.4 (7th Cir. 2008).

Challenge MRE 311!

July 18, 2023 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

YOUR MILITARY DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD CHALLENGE THE APPLICATION OF THE MILITARY RULE OF EVIDENCE 311.

THE RULE VIOLATES THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

WE ARE CHALLENGING THAT AT THE U. S. SUPREME COURT NOW.

Another bad day at CAAF for the Fourth Amendment.

May 7, 2023 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Two recent decisions of CAAF condone unlawful or bad practices when OSI, CID, NCIS, and CGIS search cellphones; United States v. Shields and United States v. Lattin. As a result, the MCIOs are unlikely to change their unlawful or bad practices. More than sloppy police work gets two passes because the military appellate courts think suppression of evidence won’t change that behavior–and the accused is a bad person. Military defense lawyers need to be fully aware of the issues whenever evidence from an accused’s cellphone comes up in evidence.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches of our property, including cell phones. In Riley, the Supreme Court properly required a search warrant for (CID, OSI, CGIS, and NCIS) intrusions into seized cellphones. The court has acknowledged that people have a privacy right against Government intrusion without a warrant based on probable cause. As we know, there is an awful lot of personal data that is kept on the cellphone, and that can be retrieved with forensic tools.

In Lattin, the issue was a fishing expedition through the Appellant’s cellphone. The trial transcript shows that the OSI agent believed she had the right to search everything in the cellphone because it had been seized after the execution of a commander’s search and seizure authorization. With that general warrant concept in her mind she scrolled through a lot of information on the Appellant’s phone that wasn’t related to the reason for the search in the beginning. The OSI agent did not believe there were any limits based on her training and experience. Both the AFCCA and CAAF have ruled that the search was unlawful but that it was excused because there would be no future deterrent effect to OSI committing further unlawful searches. The court partly relied on Mil. R. Evid. 311, which wrongly summarizes the law post-Herring that was reinforced in Davis.

Grazioplene redux

July 9, 2020 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

CNN reports,

See also, https://connectingvets.radio.com/articles/retired-army-general-james-grazioplene-stand-trial-rape-charges-army-dismissed

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/retired-army-general-rape-charges

When process is due–you might get a little more

April 7, 2015 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

[D]istrict courts generally enjoy a fair amount of discretion in choosing the procedures they find most helpful for resolving pretrial motions, including whether to take the matter on the briefs, hear oral argument, or hold an evidentiary hearing. And often enough courts will choose to err on the side of granting more process than might be strictly necessary in order to ensure not only that justice is done but that justice is seen to be done. Whether because of intuition born of experience that a meritorious issue may lurk in an imperfectly drawn application, or simply out of a jealous wish to guard individual rights against governmental intrusions, judges sometimes allow a claimant a fuller hearing than the law demands. In a democratic legal order built on the promise of due process and the vindication of individual rights that’s often thought laudable or at least generally permissible — and in any event not the stuff of automatic reversal.

United States v. Herrera, __ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. 2015).

Comment on silence

March 17, 2014 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Direct comments on the exercise of the right to silence are usually quite clear and should draw an immediate objection. Our friends at federalevidence review have a comment. What isn’t so clear are indirect or implied or subtle comments. This is a particular bugaboo of my when LE agents and trial counsel stray from the correct path. This involves judgment and discretion on whether to object.

When does the introduction of evidence constitute an indirect comment on a defendant’s silence, violating the defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination? In a tax fraud case, the Seventh Circuit examined evidence how the government focused the the jury on the defendant’s lack of response. Even though the admission of the evidence was a harmless error, the circuit found that questions to the case agent regarding the alleged fraudulent scheme, though “subtle,” were no less in violation of the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights than more direct comments on a defendant’s silence, in United States v. Phillips, __ F.3d __ (7th Cir. March 14, 2014) (No. 12-2532)

It is coming up on fifty years since the Supreme Court clarified as part of Fifth Amendment jurisprudence that a defendant’s right against self-incrimination is violated by introduction of evidence that only indirectly comments on a defendant’s failure to respond to government charges. See, e.g., Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615 (1965) (“We … hold that the Fifth Amendment … forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence [at trial] or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.”) The normal test of the violation of this requirement is that the evidence would “naturally and necessarily” be construed as a comment on the defendant’s silence. The Seventh Circuit recently examined this exclusion, explaining and describing a standard approach to dealing with evidence that possibly strays into this type of constitutional violation.

Ambiguous request for counsel

August 28, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Result – statements suppressed, and will be in the 9th because of Sessoms v. Runnels, No. 08-17790, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17206 (9th Cir. 2012) Wow. What about Davis v. United States?

Davis doesn’t apply because the ambiguous request came BEFORE the accused was advised of his Miranda rights. So, why isn’t there a similar situation for an accused who makes an ambiguous request prior to Article 31, UCMJ, warnings.

Nonetheless, a critical factual distinction between Sessoms’s statements and those evaluated by the Court in both Davis and Berghuis remains: Sessoms made his statements before he was informed of his rights under Miranda. The Miranda Court held that the coercive atmosphere of interrogation makes it essential for a suspect to be “given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process.” 384 U.S. at 445. As the Court stressed, when “the police [have] not advised the defendant of his constitutional privilege . . . at the outset of the interrogation,” the suspect’s “abdication of [that] constitutional privilege—the choice on his part to speak to the police—[is] not made knowingly or competently because of the failure to apprise him of his rights.” Id. at 465 (citing Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964)).

The new privilege for victim-advocates does not apply

August 26, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The new Mil. R. Evid. may not apply to any offense committed prior to it’s effective date? Is there an argument that application to an offense prior to the effective date violates the ex-post facto clause. See Calder v. Bull, 100 U.S. 1 (1798).

Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states in relevant part that “[n]o Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed,” and, in its opinion in Calder v. Bull, the Supreme Court recognized four types of laws that cannot be applied retroactively consistent with this Ex Post Facto Clause:

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender.

Fourth Amendment-2011

August 11, 2012 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here is a link to Orin Kerr’s review of Fourth Amendment cases from the 2011 SCOTUS term.