United States v. Ramos
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
76 M.J. 372 (2017)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
The wife of Boatswain’s Mate First Class Ernest M. Ramos (defendant) agreed to start a marijuana-growing business with a civilian named Mr. Hart but later backed out of the agreement. In response, Hart made a statement that Ramos interpreted as a threat. Ramos reported his concerns to his superiors, who contacted the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS). CGIS Special Agents Stinson and Chavez interviewed Ramos to ascertain the severity of the threat. During the interview, Stinson began to suspect that Ramos might also be involved in his wife’s marijuana business in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The agents chose not to advise Ramos of his Article 31(b) rights because they feared that doing so would cause Ramos to stop answering their questions. Instead, the agents continued to ask general questions about the business that they knew had the potential to elicit incriminating statements. The agents’ notes concerning Ramos’s statements formed the basis for a false-official-statements charge. At trial, the military judge denied Ramos’s motion to suppress the unwarned statements he had made to the agents, and Ramos was convicted. The court of criminal appeals affirmed, and Ramos appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Erdmann, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.