Statements may be used as evidence

  1. The “use” aspect of the Article 31 warning is identical to its Miranda warning counterbestmilitarydefensedefenseattorneys9.51.41PMcopypart.
  2. As with the right to silence provision described above, problems with the “use” provision generally arise when interrogators accompany the warning with provisos or disclaimers concerning the prospective use of the subject’s statements. It is well settled that such comments may negate the validity of the entire warning. United States v. Hanna , 2 M.J. 69 (C.M.A. 1976) (subsequent assurance of confidentiality negates the effectiveness of otherwise proper Article 31 warning; “[B]etween you and me, did you do it?”)