Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court decided Berghuis v. Thompkins, an important Miranda case. (There are other issues in the case, too, but this post will focus on the Miranda claim.) The basic facts, taken from the Court's syllabus, are as follows: After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, Detective Helgert and another Michigan officer interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died. At no point did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney. He was largely silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but near the end, he answered “yes” when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. Thompkins moved to suppress the statement, arguing that he had in effect asserted, or at least had not waived, his right to remain silent. The trial judge ruled against him, and after he was convicted, so did the state appellate court. He sought habeas relief in federal court, but the district court rejected his claim. The Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that his statement did not constitute an implicit waiver of his right to remain silent. The Supreme Court disagreed. It held that "Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent," or at least did not do so unambiguously, as precedent requires. "Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did [...]
Faculty Coordinators
