AL:
There is a fair mix of military and civil law in what you have there. Appreciate the education.
England was subject to Article 31 in regards to this case, not Miranda.
If the initial AR 15-6 questioned her as to facts of the matter, as well as the other personnel from the prison, I do not believe there was a requirement for her to receive a rights warning.
From my understanding of military law, it is entirely legal for MG Taguba or his AR 15-6 team to interview hundreds of personnel who possibly posessed knowledge of the matter, without reading them their Article 31 rights, and for the chain of command to determine subsequently that there were personnel that they wanted to consider for criminal charges. The AR 15-6 statements should be fully admissable, as should any statement by her prior to becoming a subject, after she waived, or after she was afforded representation, IIRC.
That is the scenario that I understand took place. In that case, if she was properly read her Art. 31 rights, and she properly waived, or questioning stopped till she was afforded counsel, the statement should stand.
Realistically, do you think there is a sizeable portion of the population in this country who could not recite Miranda verbatim?
I think everyone knows their rights, though many do not appear to exercise them to their benefit, and it sure makes for a lot of jousting and challenges at almost every criminal trial I have followed. Miranda, probable cause, and Right to search seem to be a booming commodity for the legal profession.
I see that earlier, the Supreme Court determined that vehicles proximate to suspects may be legally searched, even when the suspects are not in them. That should make things more interesting.
Just the .02 of a barracks lawyer here.
TR