United States v. Hutchins
2013 CAAF LEXIS 642
| C.A.A.F. | 2013Background
- Hutchins was convicted at a general court-martial of false official statements, unpremeditated murder, larceny, and conspiracy; sentence included confinement and dishonorable discharge; convening authority affirmed part of the sentence.
- CCA voided some rulings and ordered rehearing; JAG certified the issue to this court under Article 67(a)(2); this Court previously held severance of counsel was improper but Hutchins not prejudiced, and returned for further review.
- On May 11, 2006, NCIS interrogated Hutchins after Miranda rights; Hutchins invoked the right to counsel and interrogation ended; Hutchins was confined in a trailer with restricted communication for about a week.
- On May 18, 2006, NCIS sought consent to search Hutchins’s belongings; Hutchins signed a permissive search form and asked to discuss his side of the story; the next morning Hutchins was re-interviewed and gave a written confession.
- Majority holds the NCIS search-consent request reinitiated communication in violation of Edwards v. Arizona and Oregon v. Bradshaw, rendering Hutchins’s May 19, 2006 statement inadmissible; case is remanded for rehearing.
- Dissent argues Edwards does not bar consent-to-search discussions after invocation and raises concerns about unlawful command influence and clemency processes; would affirm admissibility of the May 19 statement and address command influence separately.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NCIS’s May 18 consent request reinitiated interrogation under Edwards. | Hutchins relied on Edwards; NCIS’s request to search opened a generalized discussion. | Frazier held consent to search is not interrogation; Edwards Bradshaw distinctions apply. | Yes; reinitiation occurred and statement should have been suppressed. |
| Whether Hutchins knowingly and intelligently waived rights after reinitiation. | Waiver occurred after reinitiation and overnight reflection. | Waiver valid under totality of circumstances; cleansing warnings given. | Court need not reach waiver issue if Edwards violation established; evidence supports suppression. |
| Whether Secretary of the Navy’s public comments created unlawful command influence. | Comments tainted appellate and clemency proceedings. | No demonstrable practical influence; mere comments cannot violate Article 37. | Court finds appearance of unlawful command influence; criticizes but remands for appropriate action (majority posture). |
| Whether the JAG certification and NC&PB clemency process were unlawfully influenced. | Comments affected post-trial proceedings and clemency outcomes. | No substantial evidence of improper influence; processes remain valid. | No sufficient evidence of unlawful command influence on those proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (establishes reinitiation prohibition after counsel request unless initiated by suspect)
- Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (distinguishes routine custodial discussions from generalized investigation-related dialogue)
- United States v. Frazier, 34 M.J. 135 (1992) (consent-to-search not interrogation; does not override Edwards/Bradshaw in reinitiation context)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (defines interrogation to include words or actions likely to elicit an incriminating response)
- Bradshaw (Bradshaw, Oregon v.), 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) (Bradshaw plurality discusses initiation of dialogue related to investigation)
- Edwards v. Maryland, 559 U.S. 98 (2010) (Shatzer-like framing; reiterates Edwards protective scope for right to counsel)
- United States v. Brabant, 29 M.J. 259 (1989) (discusses reinitiation and conditions under which statements may be elicited)
- United States v. Lewis, 63 M.J. 405 (2006) (appearance of unlawful command influence standard)