SULLIVAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which COX, C.J., and CRAWFORD, GIERKE, and EFFRON, JJ., joined.

For Appellant: Major Leslie A. Nepper (argued); Lieutenant Colonel Adele H. Odegard and Major Michael E. Hatch, USAR (on brief); Colonel John T. Phelps, II, and Major Holly S.G. Coffey.

For Appellee: Major Virginia G. Beakes, USAR (argued); Colonel Russell S. Estey, Lieutenant Colonel Eugene R. Milhizer, and Major Patricia A. Ham (on brief).

Military Judge: Craig S. Schwender
 

Judge SULLIVAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of officer and enlisted members during the summer of 1995 at Mannheim and Bad Kreuznach, Germany. Contrary to his pleas, he was found guilty of the premeditated murder of Thomas Kreiz and the aggravated assault of Mr. Kreiz and Mario Massaro, in violation of Articles 118(1) and 128(b)(1) and (2), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC §§ 918(1) and 928(b)(1) and (2). On July 21, 1995, the members sentenced appellant to a dishonorable discharge, confinement for life, forfeiture of $300 pay per month for 14 months, reduction to pay grade E-1, and a reprimand.

On November 24, 1995, the convening authority reduced the finding of guilty of premeditated murder to a finding of guilty of unpremeditated murder in violation of Article 118(2). He also approved only so much of the adjudged sentence as provided for a dishonorable discharge, confinement for 60 years, forfeiture of $300 pay per month for 14 months, and reduction to E-1.

On November 18, 1997, a panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals further reduced the finding of guilty of unpremeditated murder to voluntary manslaughter, in violation of Article 119(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 919(a), set aside the sentence, and authorized a rehearing on sentence. On January 20, 1998, the Government requested reconsideration by the panel or by the court en banc. On February 19, 1998, en banc reconsideration was denied. However, the panel agreed to reconsider its decision. On April 30, 1998, it issued a second decision which set aside its prior decision, affirmed findings of guilty to unpremeditated murder and the other offenses, and affirmed the sentence. 48 MJ 616 (1998).

On February 3, 1999, this Court granted review on the following issues of law:

The facts in this case as found by the Court of Criminal Appeals are fully reported in its decision of April 30, 1998. In pertinent part, it said:

The first issue granted review asks whether the trial judge erred in denying appellant’s motion to suppress his pretrial statement to Agent Kampa that he stabbed Mr. Kreiz with his pocketknife during the affray in the alley. The Court of Criminal Appeals points out that this was "the only direct evidence linking appellant to the stabbing death of Mr. Kriez," although circumstantial evidence on this point existed in the record. Id. at 619 . Appellant submits

The first question we will address is whether Special Agent (SA) Panaligan’s earlier conversation with appellant after he terminated his interview with German police investigators violated Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981). Edwards holds that a suspect in custody, who states his intention to exercise his right to counsel or silence, may not be interrogated by police until his lawyer is present or until he reinitiates discussions with police about the crime. See Enoch v. Gramley, 70 F.3d 1490, 1499-1500 (7^th Cir. 1995). Appellant argues that SA Panaligan’s advice to tell the truth if he was innocent was interrogation which violated the Edwards bright-line rule and tainted his later statement to SA Kampa admitting his stabbing of Mr. Kriez. See Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411, 417-18 (9^th Cir. 1991). We disagree.

We note that the record in this case shows that appellant was arrested by German police and brought to a German police building. Both German and American authorities advised him of his rights, he waived those rights, and German police conducted his questioning. He then admitted only to being a witness to the fight. After approximately 2 hours, appellant said that he was tired and indicated that he wanted to continue the questioning in the morning.

We are not convinced that Edwards applies in a situation involving interrogation conducted by a foreign Government. In any event, we find no violation of Edwards in SA Panaligan’s continued encouragement of appellant to speak the truth. The record before us shows no unequivocal assertion by appellant of his right to counsel or silence, which is required to invoke the Miranda¹-Edwards bright-line rule against further police interrogation or its functional equivalent. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1992). Here, he simply indicated that he was tired of talking and wanted to continue the next day. Accordingly, this legal claim based on Edwards is without merit.

The next question we will address is whether SA Kampa’s subsequent questioning of appellant violated Edwards. Appellant asserts that he "clearly and unequivocally requested a lawyer" after his conversation with SA Panaligan but before his admissions to Agent Kampa. The record shows, however, that appellant stated that he both wanted to talk to police "and" he wanted a lawyer. The record also shows that SA Kampa refused this request but acceded to appellant’s second request to talk to them at that time and to see a lawyer in the morning. In our view, this was also a situation where appellant did not unequivocally exercise his right to counsel, and his actions were legally insufficient to invoke the protections of Miranda and Edwards. See Davis v. United States, supra.

The final question we will address regarding Issue I is whether all the circumstances of this case together show that appellant’s will was overborne and his inculpatory admissions were involuntary. See United States v. Bubonics, 45 MJ 93-94 (1996). Appellant cites two Court of Criminal Appeals cases generally identifying factors pertaining to a voluntariness inquiry. See United States v. Sojfer, 47 MJ 425, 429-30 (1998)(our Court discussing the same factors). He then notes his purported 3-hour interrogation and the ambiguous role of Special Agents Panaligan and Kampa as representatives of the United States Government who were purportedly there to help him.

We review de novo the question of the voluntariness of a Fulminante confession. See Bubonics, supra at 94; Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 287 (1991). We agree with the appellate court below, however, that appellant’s incriminatory admissions were entirely voluntary. The record shows that he couched these admissions in his exculpatory story of self-defense to military authorities in the hopes of avoiding his problems with the German Government. In these circumstances, we see no involuntariness. See United States v. Washington, 46 MJ 477, 482 (1997) (confession voluntary where record shows appellant tried to talk himself out of trouble).

Appellant next complains that the evidence of record is legally insufficient to support his conviction for unpremeditated murder. He argues that the prosecution introduced no evidence that he intended to kill or inflict great bodily harm on the victim, Mr. Kreiz. He further argues that the prosecution failed to prove that appellant did not act in the heat of passion due to adequate provocation. We will not relitigate this case at the appellate level, but instead limit ourselves to the question whether evidence was admitted in this case which would permit a reasonable person to find appellant guilty of unpremeditated murder. See United States v. Pabon, 42 MJ 404, 405 (1995), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Initially, we note that appellant, in a pretrial statement, admitted stabbing Mr. Kreiz numerous times. Other evidence was admitted that Mr. Kreiz was stabbed eight times, one time in the heart and four other times in life-threatening locations, and Mr. Massaro was stabbed in the back as he was attempting to withdraw a badly wounded Mr. Kreiz from the alley. Evidence was also admitted that appellant kicked Mr. Kreiz in the head while he was lying wounded in his mother’s arms outside the alley.

Proof that a person used a knife and that a death resulted therefrom has long been considered proof of an intent to kill or cause great bodily harm. See United States v. Jackson, 6 USCMA 193, 203, 19 CMR 319, 329 (1955); United States v. Holsey, 2 USCMA 554, 556-57, 10 CMR 52, 54-55 (1953). Moreover, proof of numerous wounds in lethal locations also reasonably suggests an intent to kill. See United States v. Rodwell, 20 MJ 264 (CMA 1985). Finally, we note that proof that appellant continued his assault on the victim, even while he lay helpless in the arms of others, surely would suggest to a reasonable person an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. See United States v. Varraso, 21 MJ 129, 134 (CMA 1985).

Admittedly, appellant’s version of the events that evening, as reflected in his pretrial statement admitted as evidence in this case, is different. He basically asserts that he was being beaten by two Germans and struck out wildly with his pocketknife in fear and desperation in an effort to protect himself (heat of passion due to adequate provocation). The prosecution, however, was not required to introduce direct evidence contradicting the defense’s evidence. It could and did introduce evidence relevant to appellant´s credibility, i.e., his flight from the scene of the crime and his smashing of his own face on his arrest. See United States v. Williams, 21 MJ 360, 362 (CMA 1986). Moreover, it could and did introduce evidence, which circumstantially contradicted appellant's version of the events that night, i.e., testimony that appellant followed the victim and Krakowiki into the alley. See generally United States v. Maxwell, 38 MJ 148, 150-51 (CMA 1993) (the Government may meet its burden of proof with direct or circumstantial evidence). Viewing the record as a whole, we find that it contains legally sufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction for unpremeditated murder. Cf. United States v. Cauley, 45 MJ 353, 356 (1996) (we are not limited to appellant’s narrow view of record on issue of lack of consent in rape case).

The third issue before us is whether the panel of the Court of Criminal Appeals which decided appellant’s case erred when it reversed itself and affirmed a finding of guilty to unpremeditated murder. In an earlier panel decision, it had set aside appellant’s approved finding of guilty of unpremeditated murder and affirmed a finding of guilty to voluntary manslaughter. Before that, as noted above, appellant had been found guilty of premeditated murder, but the convening authority subsequently reduced this finding of guilty to unpremeditated murder.

Appellant argues that the panel of judges which set aside the decision of November 18, 1997, did so in violation of Article 66(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 866(a), which states in pertinent part:

The plain language of the statute provides that "[a]ny decision of a panel may be reconsidered by the court sitting as a whole . . . ." (Emphasis added.) It does not state that any decision of a panel must be reconsidered by the court sitting as a whole. We presume that Congress is capable of saying what it means, and additional interpretation on our part, at least in this matter, is unnecessary. See generally Richardson v. United States, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 1710 (1999); United States v. Wells, 519 U.S. 482, 490-91 (1997).

In addition, subsections (a) and (f) of Article 66 expressly authorize the uniform rules of procedure prescribed by the Judge Advocates General. 44 MJ LXIII (effective May 1, 1996). Reconsideration of a decision by a Court of Criminal Appeals is provided for without regard to whether it is sitting as a panel or as a whole. See Rules 19 and 4; cf. Rule 17 (en banc proceedings). Finally, nothing in the legislative history of this codal provision has been called to our attention which expressly states that Congress intended to bar reconsideration by a panel. See generally United States v. Solis, 46 MJ 31, 33 (1997).

Finally, when Article 66 was first enacted, it directed each Judge Advocate General to "constitute in his office one or more boards of review." Each board of review was a separate entity. There was no provision for en banc proceedings. On several occasions, our Court recognized the inherent authority of a board of review to reconsider its own decisions. See, e.g., United States v. Sparks, 5 USCMA 453, 18 CMR 77 (1955); United States v. Corbin, 3 USCMA 99, 11 CMR 99 (1953); United States v. Reeves, 1 USCMA 388, 3 CMR 122 (1952). In Reeves, our Court stated that "boards of review must clothe themselves with some of the powers inherent in courts," including "the right to correct clerical errors, inadvertently entered decisions, and those decisions which are clearly wrong as a matter of law." Id. at 390-91, 3 CMR at 124-25.

When the Military Justice Act of 1968 replaced the boards of review with Courts of Military Review, Article 66 was amended to direct each Judge Advocate General to "establish a court of Military Review which shall be composed of one or more panels." Article 66 further provided that "the court may sit in panels or as a whole." 82 Stat. 1335. In United States v. Chilcote, 20 USCMA 283, 286, 43 CMR 123, 126 (1971), our Court reviewed the legislative history of Article 66 and concluded that Congress intended to replace the boards of review with "a single appellate body for the review of court-martial cases within each service." Chilcote held that Article 66 did not permit en banc reconsideration of a panel decision; it did not address the previously recognized authority of panels to reconsider their own decisions.

In the Military Justice Act of 1983, Article 66 was amended again to specifically overrule the Chilcote decision by adding the following sentence: "Any decision of a panel may be reconsidered by the court sitting as a whole in accordance with such rules." 97 Stat. 1402. See United States v. Flowers, 26 MJ 463, 464-65 (CMA 1988) (setting out legislative history).

The 1983 amendment relied on by appellant addressed only the question whether a majority of the court sitting en banc could reconsider a panel decision. It did not overrule our Court’s earlier decisions recognizing a panel’s inherent authority to reconsider its own decisions.

Appellant finally argues that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its second decision in this case by erroneously failing to require the prosecution to disprove that he acted in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation. See Art. 119(a); para. 44c(1), Part IV, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (1995 ed.).² See generally Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975). He implies that the appellate court erred in this regard because it accepted the Government’s reconsideration argument that insufficient evidence of adequate provocation was admitted in this case. See United States v. Maxie, 9 USCMA 156, 25 CMR 418 (1958); United States v. Roston, 986 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9^th Cir. 1993). We reject appellant’s "failure to alter the burden of proof" argument.

The Government, indeed, did argue that the burden to disprove heat of passion based on adequate provocation never shifted to the prosecution. It particularly argued that, "[i]n the instant case, the Army Court’s factual determinations and the evidence in the record clearly establish that there is absolutely no evidence of adequate provocation." Moreover, it has continued to argue that its only burden was to "prove[] beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant intended to kill Mr. Kreiz." Answer to Final Brief at 54.

Turning to the appellate court’s second opinion in this case, however, we are not persuaded that it accepted the Government’s argument on this point. Its opinion certainly does not state that the prosecution had no burden to disprove heat of passion and adequate provocation. Instead, it said:

In construing this language, we note that the members of appellant’s court-martial were properly instructed that adequate provocation and heat of passion were factual issues in this case, upon which the prosecution carried the burden of proof. These circumstances distinguish appellant’s case from Maxie and Roston, where it was held that evidence in the record was not sufficient to warrant the trial judge giving an instruction on manslaughter. Moreover, the service court’s opinion does not purport to establish a rule of law that fisticuffs are never adequate provocation for the use of a knife. Cf. Maxie, supra at 161, 25 CMR at 423 ("Insulting or abusive words or gestures, taunts, a slight blow with the hand or fist are not, standing alone, considered adequate provocation."). Instead, expressly relying on its Article 66(c) factfinding powers, the service appellate court found that the provocation itself was insufficient. See Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 702. While use of the word "insufficient" might suggest an evidentiary insufficiency holding, the lower court’s opinion, viewed in its entirety, clearly indicated a factual finding of inadequate provocation. Cf. United States v. Saulsberry, 47 MJ 493, 495 (1998); see generally para. 44c(1)(b), Part IV, Manual, supra ("The provocation must be adequate to excite uncontrollable passion in a reasonable person[.]").

The decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

2 This provision is unchanged in the 1998 Manual.