United States v. Sager

I write only to add a dimension to the discussion in Part VI of the majority opinion regarding appellant’s claimed violation of Mil.R.Evid. 305(e), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984.

As that opinion points out, Mil.R.Evid. 305(e) is “ ‘offense specific’ ” in that its notice requirement kicks in only when the suspect has counsel “with respect to that offense____” 36 MJ at 146. Nonetheless, this Court has construed that rule to apply, as well, when the questioned interrogation involves an offense that is related to the offense for which a suspect has counsel. See United States v.…