Clear and unequivocal invocation of Article 31 rights requires statements that reasonable investigators would understand as definitive assertions of the right to remain silent or desire for counsel. Direct statements like “I invoke my Article 31 rights,” “I want to remain silent,” or “I want a lawyer” constitute unequivocal invocations requiring immediate termination of questioning. Military courts apply objective standards examining whether typical investigators would understand suspects were asserting rights rather than expressing uncertainty or negotiating.
Ambiguous statements that fail to invoke rights clearly include: “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” “I don’t know if I should answer that,” “What would you do in my situation?” or “Do you think I need an attorney?” These equivocal expressions allow continued questioning because investigators cannot reasonably determine whether suspects are asserting rights. Courts place the burden on suspects to articulate rights assertion clearly rather than requiring investigators to clarify ambiguous statements. This bright-line approach provides certainty for all parties.
Context matters when evaluating invocation clarity. Tone, body language, and surrounding circumstances influence whether statements appear equivocal. However, courts generally require verbal clarity regardless of non-verbal cues suggesting reluctance. Written invocations provide optimal clarity, but oral statements suffice if unambiguous. Conditional invocations like “I’ll answer some questions but not others” create practical difficulties often leading to improper questioning expansion. Clear, complete invocation prevents such complications.
Best practices for service members include using scripted phrases ensuring clarity: “I am invoking my right to remain silent under Article 31,” “I want to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions,” or “I respectfully decline to answer questions without counsel present.” Avoid explanations, conditions, or equivocation that might undermine clarity. Repeat invocation phrases if questioning continues. Document exact words used for potential suppression litigation. Understanding that clarity protects rights while ambiguity enables continued questioning motivates careful articulation when asserting Article 31 protections.