United States v. Tempia
16 U.S.C.M.A. 629, 16 C.M.A. 629, 37 C.M.R. 249 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The procedural safeguards established in Miranda v. Arizona, which require that a suspect in custody be informed of their right to remain silent and their right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed, apply to military interrogations of criminal suspects.
Facts:
- On May 1, 1966, after being identified by three young girls as the man who made obscene proposals to them in a library restroom, Airman Tempia was taken to the Air Police office.
- At the office, Agent Blessing advised Tempia of his rights under Article 31 of the UCMJ and his right to 'consult with legal counsel.'
- Tempia stated he wanted counsel, at which point the interview was immediately terminated and he was released.
- On May 3, 1966, Tempia was again called to the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) and stated he had not yet obtained counsel.
- An appointment was made for Tempia with Major Hogue, the Base Staff Judge Advocate.
- Major Hogue informed Tempia that he could not form an attorney-client relationship with him, would not hear any facts of the case, and that 'no military lawyer would be appointed to represent him during the OSI investigation.'
- Major Hogue further advised Tempia that he had the right to hire a civilian lawyer at his own expense.
- After meeting with Major Hogue, Tempia returned to the OSI office, stated he did not desire further counsel because 'They didn’t do me no good,' and subsequently confessed after being re-advised of his rights.
Procedural Posture:
- Tempia was tried by a general court-martial at Dover Air Force Base.
- The court-martial convicted Tempia of taking indecent liberties with females under the age of sixteen.
- Intermediate appellate authorities affirmed the conviction.
- The Judge Advocate General of the Air Force certified the case to the United States Court of Military Appeals, asking it to review whether Tempia's pretrial statement was properly received in evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the failure to advise a military suspect during a custodial interrogation that he is entitled to an appointed lawyer, in addition to a retained civilian lawyer, render his subsequent confession inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Ferguson, J.
Yes. A confession is rendered inadmissible when a military suspect in custody is not fully advised of his right to an appointed attorney, as required by the constitutional principles set forth in Miranda v. Arizona. The protections of the Bill of Rights apply to members of the armed forces, and the Miranda warnings are constitutional rules, not mere supervisory guidelines. Tempia was explicitly and incorrectly told that no military lawyer would be appointed for him during the investigation, which directly contradicts the Miranda requirement that a suspect be informed of their right to an attorney, 'either retained or appointed.' This deficient warning made his subsequent confession inadmissible, and his statement that counsel 'didn't do me no good' was a product of frustration with the legally improper advice, not a knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights.
Dissenting - Quinn, C.J.
No. The confession was properly admitted because the military's existing procedures provide a 'fully effective means' to safeguard a suspect's rights, equivalent to the Miranda warnings. The Supreme Court in Miranda praised the military's system under Article 31 and the practice of allowing consultation with a Staff Judge Advocate (SJA). This procedure, which substitutes the impartial authority of an SJA for a station-house lawyer, effectively informs the individual of their right to remain silent. The advice given by the SJA is functionally the same as what any lawyer would provide in that situation. Tempia's subsequent confession was not the result of a rights violation, but a voluntary decision made after realizing the strength of the evidence against him and that the 'jig was up.'
Concurring - Kilday, J.
Yes. The confession must be excluded because Miranda v. Arizona established a minimum constitutional standard that is imperatively binding on all subordinate federal courts, including this one. The decision in Miranda is one of 'constitutional dimension,' not merely a rule of evidence or procedure that can be modified. This court is obligated to follow the Supreme Court's constitutional holdings to ensure the finality of litigation and protect the accused from potential harm, as civil courts can and do review court-martial proceedings for constitutional errors. The advice given to Tempia clearly fell short of the minimum constitutional requirements enumerated in Miranda.
Analysis:
This landmark decision incorporated the Fifth Amendment protections articulated in Miranda v. Arizona directly into military law, affirming that service members possess the same fundamental constitutional rights as civilians during custodial interrogations. It effectively nullified prior military case law, like United States v. Wimberley, which did not require such extensive warnings about counsel. The ruling forced a significant change in military law enforcement procedures, requiring investigators to provide the full Miranda warnings, including the right to appointed counsel at the pre-trial investigation stage. This case established that the military's unique justice system is not exempt from the core constitutional safeguards that govern criminal procedure in civilian courts.
