The Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals recently released its opinion in United States v. Eneliko. The Court set aside MA3 Eneliko’s conviction for wrongful use of cocaine after it found that the Military Judge did not properly analyze the defense’s suppression motion.
MA3 Eneliko was being escorted to an appointment by a member of his chain of command. Both he and the escort were masters-at-arms. After the appointment, the escort was told to take MA3 Eneliko to the NCIS office. Once there, MA3 Eneliko met with a detective from CID and a special agent from NCIS. The CID detective was the lead investigator and began his interrogation of MA3 Eneliko by asking about his appointment, his background, and otherwise building rapport. He did not yet advise MA3 Eneliko of his rights to an attorney and to remain silent provided by Article 31, UCMJ.
As the interrogation began to move towards the subject of the suspected criminal activity, the CID detective informed MA3 Eneliko that he would read him his rights “in a second” and then asked if MA3 Eneliko knew why he was at NCIS. When MA3 Eneliko replied that he did not, the detective told him: “Urinalysis.” MA3 Eneliko said “Okay” and the detective then told him that the law enforcement officers were there to “help [him] through this whole thing.” The detective then told MA3 Eneliko that they could not help him if he did not tell them what happened and “help [the officers] out.” MA3 Eneliko said “Okay” and the detective then advised him of his Article 31 rights. MA3 Eneliko waived his rights and provided a statement confessing to the wrongful use of cocaine.
At trial, the defense moved to suppress the statements, arguing that MA3 Eneliko’s waiver of his Article 31 rights was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. The Military Judge denied his motion and MA3 Eneliko was found guilty, with the Government relying heavily upon MA3 Eneliko’s confession.
On appeal, the defense again raised the suppression motion. The appellate court found that the Military Judge had analyzed the voluntariness of MA3 Eneliko’s rights waiver, but had not considered all of the surrounding facts and circumstances in doing so. The Military Judge also did not separately analyze whether the waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. The Court pointed to the fact that MA3 Eneliko was brought to the NCIS office by a master-at-arms, as well as the pre-rights discussion of CID and NCIS “helping” him out if he spoke to them as factors that the Military Judge did not properly consider.
In light of these failures to fully analyze the circumstances of MA3 Eneliko’s waiver of his rights, the appellate court set aside the guilty finding and sentence and sent the case back to the convening authority. The case can be tried again, and the defense can again move to suppress his confession at the rehearing.
If you or your loved one want to appeal a court-martial, you need someone with experience who knows what arguments to make on your behalf, and when to make them. I have argued this issue, and numerous others in front of appellate courts and CAAF. I have the experience you need. Please call Bill Cassara at (706) 860-5769 for a free consultation.