Article 31 Rights vs. Miranda Warnings: Differences Unveiled

Key Takeaways

No military member may be compelled to incriminate himself, or to answer any question the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.
If one service member suspects another service member of committing a criminal offenses, and they want to question that person about the alleged acts, then Article 31 rights must be read prior to any questioning.
No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from, an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation. Along with advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
A service member suspected of a crime should never waive their right to remain silent and make a statement without first speaking with an attorney.

Article 31 Rights

Comparable to the Miranda warnings, Article 31 specifies the rights of an accused military member. Some of these rights include the right to know what one is being accused of, the right to remain silent, the right to submit only evidence that is relevant to the accusation, and the right not to have unlawfully obtained evidence used against one in court.

Article 31 rights protect soldiers from being tried unfairly and it continues the American fair-trial spirit to the military court system. Interestingly enough, Article 31 predates the Miranda rule by over a decade. That being said, both have the same goal: protecting the rights of the accused and encouraging a fair trial.

One difference between the the two is that the Miranda rule applies specifically to civilians who are being held in custody. If the suspect is not being held, the law enforcement officer does not have to read them their Miranda rights. In contrast, the UCMJ requires that anyone subject to the UCMJ, regardless of if they’re a law enforcement officer, must inform the military suspect of his or her Article 31 rights. This is regardless of whether or not the suspect is in custody. This means that a service member would likely be read her Article 31 rights way before she would be read her Miranda rights if she was a civilian.

Article 32 Hearings

The military system is also different at trial. The civilian pretrial hearing is referred to as a grand jury hearing, and the military pretrial hearing is referred to as an Article 32 hearing. Both military and civilian systems include pretrial hearings. However, in an Article 32 military hearing, the accused is able to, through her attorney, request witnesses and question them herself. Also, in an Article 32 hearing, the government is required to present all relevant evidence against the accused. In a grand jury hearing, the accuser does not have to present every piece of evidence.

The military and civilian justice systems differ in several ways, but both have similar rights provided to the accused to promote a fair trial. If you find yourself or someone close to you in legal situation and need assistance, contact Military Trial Defenders. We have the military knowledge and expertise to defend your career, your rights, and your freedom. Facing military charges in Tacoma? Our experienced defense team is ready to protect your rights and career. Learn more about our Tacoma office and how we can help you.