Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces-Hurtado

Hurtado CAAF addresses a fundamental question of Fifth Amendment law in the military justice context: whether a suspect's statement—"I mean, I would like to speak to a lawyer, but um, yeah"—constitutes an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel sufficient to trigger the suppression protections established in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1982), and as narrowly interpreted based on Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994)[1].

The Majority

The majority reverses the Army Court of Criminal Appeals and reinstates the military judge's suppression order. It applies the Davis v. United States "reasonable officer" standard but reads it contextually rather than mechanically.

When Special Agent NL asked Hurtado directly whether he wanted a lawyer, he replied: "I mean, I would like to speak to a lawyer, but um, yeah." The Army CCA held the word "but" rendered the statement inherently equivocal. The majority disagrees. It reads the statement structurally: it opens with an unambiguous request ("I would like to speak to a lawyer") and closes with an affirmative ("yeah"). The intervening "but um" functions as a conversational hesitation—common in informal speech under stress—not a retraction of expressed intent. The majority notes that "[i]n ordinary speech, filler words such as 'but um,' often serve as conversational hesitations rather than signaling a retraction of the speaker's expressed intent, particularly in a stressful custodial interview."

The majority also rejects the Government's claim that the military judge failed to apply the Davis reasonable-officer test. Military judges carry a presumption of knowing the law, the judge expressly cited Davis, and nothing in the record rebuts that presumption.

The Dissent. Chief Judge Ohlson argues the answer is simple: Appellant changed his mind twice in the same sentence, and no statement that ambiguous can meet Davis's requirement.

The dissent performs a three-phase parse of the statement. The opening — "I'd like to speak with an attorney" — is clear. The word "but" then signals contradiction: by dictionary definition it introduces a phrase "contrary to" or "in opposition" with what precedes it. And "um, yeah" resolves nothing — it could reaffirm the request, affirm the doubt, or carry no semantic value at all. The dissent draws on Davis itself for the proposition that "there is no 'tie-goes-to-the-runner' canon of interpretation under which Appellant may seek shelter. Any plausible ambiguity, doubt, or alternative interpretation necessarily means the statement is not 'unambiguous.'"

The dissent also argues that even if invocation occurred, Special Agent NL's clarifying follow-up questions constituted "good police practice" as Davis commends — and Hurtado's subsequent response ("I want to know what I'm here for, first") relinquished any prior invocation under Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010).

The Kaufman Framework: Rights as Burden

This is where the case becomes important beyond its immediate facts. As Kaufman documents, criminal procedure rights once operated as jurisdictional constraints on judicial power — "inalienable" rules that "nothing a defendant did or said could" waive. "Defects in the criminal process — for example, a jury of only eleven people or a trial in the wrong place — were problems of jurisdiction." Harvard Law Review

At the turn of the twentieth century, courts reconceived these rules as individual entitlements: "venue provisions, the double jeopardy ban, the requirement that a defendant witness his own trial, the prohibition on self-incrimination, the grand jury, the jury trial — each became a 'personal' right rather than a jurisdictional rule. Once these new rights existed, they could be waived, forfeited, and traded." Harvard Law Review

Davis — and the dissent's reading of it — represents the fullest expression of that post-revolutionary paradigm applied to the right to counsel during interrogation. As one scholarly commentary has observed, the Davis rule's requirement of an "unambiguous" assertion "appears to conflate knowing that you have a right to a lawyer with knowing that you have to unambiguously assert your desire for one to preserve that right." Harvard Law Review The burden falls on the person least likely to understand its technical requirements: a non-lawyer, under custodial pressure, who may have nothing beyond a high school education and no experience with law enforcement.

Kaufman describes the practical consequence: "criminal procedure rights evolved from inflexible rules into bargaining chips." The modern system of mass processing "only works if" rights can be forfeited — and forfeiture happens, routinely, because the invocation threshold requires a precision that frightened, informal speakers cannot always produce. NYU School of Law

The majority's contextual reading of "but um, yeah" is a modest corrective within this framework — it doesn't restore the jurisdictional model, but it insists that the reasonable-officer standard must account for how human beings actually speak under duress, not how lawyers draft legal briefs.
_____________
[1] Ably argued by then Major Dave Jonas, USMC, Code 45.
​