is sought or is a reasonable consequence of such questioning.” Mil. R. Evid. 305(b)(2). In light of Ms. Coleman's knowledge of the "situation,” her initial question fits this definition. 17 . In cases where there is a substantial omission, but the record is sufficiently complete to allow proper appellate review, the government must still rebut the presumption of prejudice to overcome the statutory constraints on sentences which may be approved based on an incomplete record. Se 00) (stating that ”[t]he primary source of the rights’ warning requirement in military law is a statutory enactment, not constitutional adjudication,” but nevertheless holding that the Article 31(b), UCMJ, violation was harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt”); United States v. Pittman, 36 M.J. 404, 408 (C.M.A.1993) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Remai, 19 M.J. 229, 233
holding that admission of statements obtained in violation of miranda was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where the substance of the statements was introduced through other untainted testimony holding that trial court must determine whether fifth amendment violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that admission of statement presumptively taken in violation of article 31b was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt but citing article 59a ucmj holding that harmless beyond a reasonable doubt analysis not applicable in habeas cases holding that error in admitting statement taken in violation of article 31b ucmj was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt