Supreme Court Issues New Guidance on Miranda
By Melancton Smith • Tuesday June 1, 2010 4:16 PM PDT • 8 Comments
Today, in a 5-4 decision, the Court issued an opinion in Berghuis v. Thompkins. The Court held that that a defendant who refused to sign a waiver form after being advised of his Miranda rights, and then was silent for most of a three-hour custodial interrogation before incriminating himself in a shooting, had waived his right to remain silent. The Court averred that person given Miranda warnings must invoke Miranda’s right to silence “unambiguously.”
Officers approached Thompkins, read him his rights, but Thompkins refused to sign the waiver form. Eventually the officers asked him if he believed in God and prayed. Thompkins said yes. Thompkins began to shed tears. Then the officers inquired if he asked God’s forgiveness for murdering the victim. Thompkins said that he did. This statement was used against him at trial. He was convicted and sentenced to life without parole.
The Court concluded that Thompkins, who “did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk” had not unambiguously invoked the right to silence. The Court rejected Thompkins’ argument that the police were required to obtain a waiver of his Miranda rights before questioning him.
This decision makes sense to me. All Thompkins has to do was tell the officers that he did not want to talk or ask them for an attorney. Had he done so, the interrogation would have stopped. “Miranda rights” are of judicial creation anyway. No harm is done in requiring the accused to actually invoke the protections before deciding to suppress evidence.
Tags: Civil Liberties, Constitution, Law 
This is the wife of respondent, the sad news is, the judges ruled, based off of 3 questions, that were never asked to my husband. The officer told my husband if he didn’t give him his side of the story, that he would have to make one up, and he did. Way to go Officer Helgert, your lie won. And the courts had no record that these questions were asked or answered, they went off of the lying officer testimony, and said we couldn’t argue that issue, because it would be our word, against his, wow! The law is lying agents win!!!!
michelle | Jun 1, 2010 | Reply
Not seeing how a right to remain silent carries with it a right to talk while remaining silent and then to claim that what one said while being silent shouldn’t count.
Randy | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
This is so sickening, all over the blogs, this officer lied, and this should have never made it to the Supreme Court, because the 3 questions that my husband supposed to have waived his rights to, where never even ask to my husband, the officer made them up, and no one ever questioned the officer, or made him prove that this happen, because it didn’t, and Detective Helgert would have had no proof, but his own fairy tale imagination. Officers get away with this nonsense all the time, and I am a witness to it, in the past.
michelle | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
I think that even though the courts decision was right, I think that they should tell a suspect that if he does not waive his rights to remain silent or ask for an attorney, that he will incriminate himself. I think by only asking the 3 questions that they were determined to to interrogate him till he admitted. I think if he did kill the guy, he should be in prison FOREVER!!!!
Taylor | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Michelle,
From the transcript linked in the post;
“The surviving victim identified Thompkins as the shooter, and the identification was supported by a surveillance camera photograph. A friend testified that Thompkins confessed to him,and the details of that confession were corroborated by evidence that Thompkins stripped and abandoned the van after the shooting. The jury, moreover, was capable of assessing Purifoy’s credibility, as it was instructed to do.”
So, sorry, but I don’t find the “everybody is lying but me” argument very convincing.
Randy | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Randy what you don’t have, is what we have, the affidavit, signed by that guy, who was made a promise, by the detectives, that if he testified against my husband who he did not know, they would acquit him of charges he was facing for a crime he was involved in. We have that information, and this was the same detective who lied on van and made up those three questions, that were never even asked to my husband, nor was it taped, recorded, just the detectives word. Why don’t you read the Sixth Circuit decision, and follow up, because the black and white you people are looking at, is far from the truth, but the truth is getting ready to hit the fans, so take a seat, and go on the ride….
michelle | Jun 2, 2010 | Reply
Michelle,
Did your husband commit the crime? Yes or no.
steven | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Randy,
I have received an email in response to comments that you have posted on this site, which indicates that you entered my email address when posting your comments. Please refrain from this practice, and use your own email address in the future.
Bill | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply