WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."
In Berghuis v. Thompkins(08-1470), the Court reverses and remands in an opinion by Justice Kennedy. The vote is 5-4, with Justice Sotomayor dissenting joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Holding: The Court upholds the state court decision rejecting the claim of a violation of Miranda v. Arizona. The defendant’s silence while being questioned by police did not amount to an invocation of his Miranda right to remain silent.
wow!!! Sometimes people just leave you speechless for a moment because you wonder if they're really that dumb or disingenuous.
Quote:
A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
This isn't new territory. Suspects have always had to actually say something to the effect that they don't want to talk, want a lawyer, etc. to invoke their Miranda Rights.
Quote:
The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.
I'd like to see what was happening during this interview. Was this guy listening to what they were telling him (i.e. what evidence, statements, etc. did they have to implicate him?). Also, was he watching what they did or appearing interested. I've done several interviews and most of the time, I've presented my explanation of what I'm doing in the interview, explained it's not like TV or the movies (some people actually ask if I'm going to use bright lights, a rubber hose, other stupid movie BS, etc.), information, evidence, answered their questions (yes, we actually get to do this) within 15-45 minutes when doing an interview. By then, I know if they're interested, want to participate (they're actually pretty smart to listen to what evidence we have) or are in some way communicating verbally that they don't want to answer questions. The above emboldened part of the suspect's statement does not meet the previous requirement that a suspect must say something to the effect of invoking, whether it's I don't want to talk, I want a lawyer, etc. Mere silence has not been considered "invoking" as it is a subjective item (i.e. maybe the suspect is just bored, etc.) whereas a verbal statement pretty much is what it is.
Quote:
"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
This has been the accepted requirement and isn't anything new.
Quote:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
How do you maintain credibility with such a ridiculous statement. The ruling does not change Miranda or weaken it. It merely codifies something that has already been occurring and is the accepted norm. Every single Miranda "right" is still there--you just have to say something as simple as I don't want to talk, etc.
Quote:
"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."
What???? There really, seriously should be some kind of competency exam before people can become SC Justices. I don't care who administers it, there needs to be a better way to ensure that people this dense don't get appointed to the SC. I would love to hear her tortuous and BS explanation for the emboldened part of her statement. I already know she has a bias but adding BS to the mixture makes me simply dread having her decide anything more important that what cereal to eat for breakfast.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
The ruling does not change Miranda or weaken it. It merely codifies something that has already been occurring and is the accepted norm. Every single Miranda "right" is still there--you just have to say something as simple as I don't want to talk, etc.
So, an arrestee has the right to remain silent ... but cannot remain silent?
So, an arrestee has the right to remain silent ... but cannot remain silent?
I get it. ... I think.
He had the right to remain silent and did so for three hours. After that, he decided to speak, thus waiving that right.
Had he asked for an attorney, one would have been appointed, and the interrogation would have ended. Same thing goes for the right to remain silent. According to this clarification, he could have said, I will use my right and remain silent for the duration of this interview, and the cops would have had their hands tied.
In other words, you are exercising your right as long as you exercise it! If you want it to be known that there will be no end to it, you should say so!
Actually, the Court didn't change anything. Here is an excerpt from the original decision. Note the statements in bold.
Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow, but, briefly stated, it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. [n4] As for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other fully effective means are devised to inform accused persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous opportunity to exercise it, the following measures are required. Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the [p445] process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking, there can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere fact that he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive him of the right to refrain from answering any further inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and thereafter consents to be questioned.
What is frightening is that four US supreme court justices think that a criminal should get a walk because while properly Mirandized and while properly questioned/interrogated by police (my presumption is that there is no rule of engagement that prohibits police to stop an interrogation under the circumstances of this case, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this topic to begin with), by some thin extension of the notion of legal justice the guy has invoked his Miranda rights by not speaking -- at the outset while still speaking later -- and the police did not then understand him to have invoked his Miranda rights and stop interrogating?
There are two objects that ought to be served in a criminal trial -- one is fairness to the defendent, but the other is fairness to the society and the plaintiff to seeking justice for a crime committed. Are the rights of the plaintiff protected when excessive weight is given to the rights ot the defendent? Do we erect a system of justice that is so complicated that you need to be a graduate of Harvard or Yale law school to be a policeman and make an arrest? Obviously this is a joke. But even if every policement were a graduate of one of Harvard or Yale law evidently would be insufficient, as it seems the Harvard and Yale educated justices disagree pretty sharply on this. Do remember that if this battle is being played out soley on the grounds of whether proper procedures were followed or not followed after an invokation of Miranda rights, there is no question of guilt of the subject crime. The defendent admitted to the crime, he is just trying to get off on a technical pretext.
Maybe there are some fine legal points involved that we are not aware of. Speaking for myself, I am not an attorney.
SCOTUS Changes Miranda
