Hutchins is heading back to CAAF. CAAF today granted review of two issues in the case:
I. Whether the findings and sentence must be dismissed with prejudice where unlawful command influence from the Secretary of the Navy has undermined substantial post-trial rights of the Appellant.
II. The Appellant was interrogated by NCIS concerning his involvement in the alleged crimes, and terminated the interview by invoking his right to counsel. Appellant was thereafter held incommunicado and placed in solitary confinement where he was denied the ability to communicate with a lawyer or any other source of assistance. Appellant was held under these conditions for 7 days, whereupon NCIS re-approached Appellant and communicated with him regarding their ongoing investigation. In response, Appellant waived his previously invoked right to counsel and subsequently provided NCIS a sworn statement concerning the alleged crimes.
Did the military judge err when he denied the defense motuion to suppress the Appellant’s statement? See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) and United States v. Brabant, 29 M.J. 259 (C.M.A. 1989).
United States v. Hutchins, __ M.J. __, No. 12-0408/MC (C.A.A.F. July 2, 2012).
NMCCA’s most recent decision in the case is available here. United States v. Hutchins, No. NMCCA 200800393 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 20, 2012).