U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VI— PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURE

10 U.S.C. § 831

Art. 31. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any question the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from, an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.(c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 48.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Revised section

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

831(a)

831(b)

50:602(a).

50:602(b).

May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art 31), 64 Stat. 118.

831(c)

50:602(c).

831(d)

50:602(d).

The word “may” is substituted for the word “shall” throughout the revised section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,117 cases (63 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: United States v. Dowell, 10 M.J. 36 (1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Dowell, 10 M.J. 36 (1980). · cites it 24× “Specifically, the appellant insists that admission of these statements into evidence violated Article 31(d), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 831 (d), as he had not been fully and correctly advised of his rights under Article 31(b), 10 U.”
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994). · cites it 4× “31, Uniform Code of *455 Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U. S. C. § 831 ; Mil. Rule Evid. 305; Manual for Courts-Martial A22-13 (1984).”
United States v. Khamsouk, 57 M.J. 282 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 7× “01-0387 Appellant was immediately given his Article 31, UCMJ, 10 USC § 831 , rights upon apprehension and was guided back into the living room to the sofa.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). · cites it 2× “To avoid any continuing effect of police pressure or inducement, the Indian Supreme Court has invalidated a confession made shortly after police brought a suspect before a magistrate, suggesting: "[I]t would, we think, be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at…”
United States v. Olson, 74 M.J. 132 (C.A.A.F. 2015). · cites it 4× “on August 18, Appellant, under Article 31, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 831 (2012), rights advisement, provided consent to search her vehicle, and at 4:00 a.”
United States v. Finch, 64 M.J. 118 (C.A.A.F. 2006). · cites it 4× “05-0435/MC interview with CPT Montgomery, Appellant signed a waiver of his Article 31, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 831 (2000), rights and subsequently made a number of statements that became the subject of a defense motion to suppress.”
United States v. Ruiz, 54 M.J. 138 (C.A.A.F. 2000). · cites it 7× “31(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 831 (b). Subject to a few exceptions, any statement obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible.”
United States v. Alameda, 57 M.J. 190 (C.A.A.F. 2002). · cites it 4× “This Court granted review to determine whether the findings and sentence should be set aside because appellant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 31, UCMJ, 10 USC § 831 , were violated when the prosecution elicited testimony that…”
United States v. Lee, 25 M.J. 457 (1988). · cites it 6× “This Court granted review of the following issue: WHETHER PARAGRAPH 176 (2) AND (3) OF USFK REGULATION 27-5 WHICH REQUIRES AN ACCOUNTING OF CONTROLLED ITEMS UPON REQUEST, AND FOR VIOLATIONS OF WHICH APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED, ARE PROMULGATED CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT…”
United States v. Akbar, 74 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2015). · cites it 2× “Motion to Suppress Appellant argues that the military judge’s decision to admit Appellant’s confession under the public safety exception was error because the confession was obtained in violation of his Article 31(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 831 (b) (2012), and Miranda22 rights.”
United States v. Swift, 53 M.J. 439 (C.A.A.F. 2000). · cites it 4× “[ 1 ] We hold that the military judge erred in admitting the verbal statements at issue in the absence of rights’ warnings under Article 31(b), UCMJ, 10 USC § 831 (b), but did not err in admitting the divorce decree into evidence.”
United States v. Hutchins, 72 M.J. 294 (C.A.A.F. 2013). · cites it 4× “436 (1966), and Article 31(b), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 831 (b) (2006). Following Hutchins’s invocation of his right to an attorney, NCIS properly terminated the interrogation.”
Show all 1,117 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 831(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Ravenel, 26 M.J. 344 (1988).
United States v. Bobby Lee Hodge, Jr., 487 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1973).
United States v. Maebane (C.A.A.F. 2025).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.