In this episode, we review whether a suspect's statement, “I would like to speak to a lawyer, but um, yeah,” was an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel under Article 31, UCMJ principles. We examine how the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces applied Edwards v. Arizona and Davis v. United States, and how the majority and dissent split over whether the words “but um, yeah” were meaningless filler words or introduced genuine ambiguity into the invocation. We provide takeaways for practitioners on evaluating motions to suppress based on the precise wording of a client's request for counsel.
Learn more about The Quill & Sword series of podcasts by visiting our podcast page at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/thequillandsword. The Quill & Sword show includes featured episodes from across the JAGC, plus all episodes from our four separate shows: “Criminal Law Department Presents” (Criminal Law Department), “NSL Unscripted” (National Security Law Department), “The FAR and Beyond” (Contract & Fiscal Law Department) and “Hold My Reg” (Administrative & Civil Law Department). Connect with The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School by visiting our website at https://tjaglcs.army.mil/.
| Date Taken: | 08.12.2026 |
| Date Posted: | 08.12.2026 08:38 |
| Category: | Interviews |
| Audio ID: | 93261 |
| Filename: | 2608/DOD_111898905.mp3 |
| Length: | 00:10:45 |
| Location: | US |
| Web Views: | 9 |
| Downloads: | 0 |
| High-Res. Downloads: | 0 |
This work, Criminal Law Department Presents – CAAF Chats Ep 78: United States v. Hurtado (C.A.A.F. 2026), must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.
