Whether active duty service members interrogated during a joint military/civilian investigation should be given the comprehensive military protections under UCMJ Art. 31(b) when facing a civilian prosecution

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case involves the dilemma of armed services members who are simultaneously caught in dual webs of the military and civilian justice systems. The following are the specific questions presented by this petition: Issue 1: In order to protect their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, should active duty service members interrogated during a joint military/civilian investigation be given the comprehensive military protections under UCMJ Art. 31(b) when facing a civilian prosecution since its application and the warnings are not identical to those required by Miranda v. Arizona. A. Should any statements made by an active duty marine to civilian detectives be suppressed in a civilian prosecution if the suspect was not “in custody” for Miranda if his statements were previously suppressed in a court martial because they were “involuntary” since the civilian detectives were acting as agents of the NCIS at the time, and; B. During a joint military/civilian investigation is the UCMJ Art. 31(b) advisement that an armed services member, while absolutely entitled to a military attorney, is only entitled to a civilian attorney at his own expense in the military justice system, the equivalent of the Miranda ii warning that he is entitled to an attorney even if he is indigent, which is required for civilian criminal trials. Issue 2: Did the civilian trial court err by finding the petitioner’s statements were voluntary by not adequately assessing military service into the totality of the circumstances, and further erred by precluding testimony to the jury regarding the unique pressures of military service against long-standing Supreme Court precedents? Issue 3: Once the military assumes the prosecution of one of its members under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the local prosecutorial agencies for a crime occurring on a military base, if the military dismisses its court martial after an adverse pretrial ruling did the civilian authorities waive its prosecutorial authority or cede its subject matter jurisdiction by entering into the MOU?