context: Upon being informed of his rights by a CID agent, PFC Reeves requests ed counsel and the CID agent terminated the interview. Later that day, when PFC Reeves was being in-processed for pretrial confinement, his company commander went to see PFC Reeves and "talk to [him]." Id. at 235. The CMA held that PFC Reeves's company commander had interrogated PFC Reeves; however, the CMA remanded the ease to the lower court as to whether PFC Reeves "initiated" the conversation with the company commander, which if true, "would [make PFC Reeves's statements] admissible."
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 29 M.J. 177, 191
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that "a suspect who is in custody and has requested counsel cannot be interrogated unless and until he has 'initiated' a discussion"
citation_a.sentence: Id. at 237 (citing Bradshaw); see United States v. Jordan, 29 M.J. 177, 191 (C.M.A.1989) (stating that “a suspect who is in custody and has requested counsel cannot be interrogated unless and until he has ‘initiated’ a discussion”) (Everett, C.J., dissenting) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Watkins, 34 M.J. 344, 347 (C.M.A.1992) (plurality) (stating that Specialist Watkins, after having invoked his right to counsel, “initiated the subsequent exchange by asking the agent whether he preferred military or civilian counsel and how much punishment [he] was facing”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 34 M.J. 344, 347
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that Specialist Watkins, after having invoked his right to counsel, "initiated the subsequent exchange by asking the agent whether he preferred military or civilian counsel and how much punishment [he] was facing"
citation_b.sentence: Id. at 237 (citing Bradshaw); see United States v. Jordan, 29 M.J. 177, 191 (C.M.A.1989) (stating that “a suspect who is in custody and has requested counsel cannot be interrogated unless and until he has ‘initiated’ a discussion”) (Everett, C.J., dissenting) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Watkins, 34 M.J. 344, 347 (C.M.A.1992) (plurality) (stating that Specialist Watkins, after having invoked his right to counsel, “initiated the subsequent exchange by asking the agent whether he preferred military or civilian counsel and how much punishment [he] was facing”).