Supreme Court: Suspects have to explicitly invoke right to remain silent
posted at 2:20 pm on June 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
The big surprise to this decision is that it came down to a 5-4 split, with Justice Anthony Kennedy providing the deciding vote. The Supreme Court overturned a ruling from the appeals court that threw out a confession and a conviction in a murder case where the suspect provided monosyllabic answers to questions for three hours before finally admitting guilt, but did not explicitly invoke his right to remain silent. The court’s decision equates that invocation with the right to an attorney, which must be explicitly demanded:
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.”
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. …
The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” “no,” “I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”
He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.
The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. The high court reversed that decision. The case is Berghuis v. Thompkins, 08-1470.
Nothing in the Constitution guarantees that police have to read minds. In a sense, the Miranda warning acts as a entree to questioning in that suspects have to confirm that they understand their rights before the questioning begins. If they understand their rights and choose not to explicitly invoke them, then why do police have to read someone’s mind in order to stop the interrogation? And at what point do the police have to read minds? In the first two hours? One hour? Fifteen minutes? In order to conduct investigations, the police have to get the reluctant to talk to them, and that sometimes takes quite a while. If they start by informing the suspect that they have the right to remain silent and confirm their understanding of that right, then the default assumption should be that the suspect hasn’t invoked that right by saying, “I don’t want to talk to you.” Passive aggressive mutterings won’t do.
Besides, as the decision states, the right to an attorney has to be explicitly invoked before an interrogation stops. The right to remain silent isn’t lesser or greater than the right to legal representation during an interrogation. Why should it be treated any differently?
Citizens have rights, but they also have responsibilities. The Miranda warning removes any argument that suspects aren’t fully informed of the former, and they have to be responsible for their own actions. The four justices who ended up on the wrong end of this decision would have forced police not just to inform people of their rights, but to have ESP as well. This should have been a 9-0 decision.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
huh!?
moonbatkiller on June 1, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Before questioning a suspect, police should be required to place a black bag on the table with the words “I Wish To Speak To A Lawyer Before Further Questioning” printed in large block lettering on the front. When the suspect wants to stop the questioning, he simply places the bag over his head, much like an “Out Of Order” bag would be placed over a broken parking meter.
Then there would be no ambiguity at all, and it would be hilarious to boot.
Cicero43 on June 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM
I can’t believe we’re one vote away from this kind of lunacy. You’re right, it should have been 9-0. So much for the Wise Latina.
Splunge on June 1, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Well, of course. Usually you’re read your rights, asked if you understand them, and then asked if you want to talk.
If you’re providing answers for several hours, obviously you’re not invoking your right to remain silent. In short, this guy regretted his immediate actions and suddenly wanted out.
“I’m not talking and I want a lawyer.” Not difficult.
amerpundit on June 1, 2010 at 2:28 PM
I agree. This should have been a no brainer. I dread upcoming decisions from the SCOTUS if things like this happen.
SuperManGreenLantern on June 1, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Sotomayor is an idiot. How does this turn miranda upside down? If the rights are read, and then asked if they were understood by someone being arrested…that’s it. If you do not understand, they’ll explain them in more detail, I’m sure.
Her opinion is absurd, and assumes everyone is to stupid to understand miranda rights. Can justices be revoked on grounds of stupidity?
capejasmine on June 1, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Test???
doriangrey on June 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM
watch “The First 48″ and tell me how many of these people understand their rights…
Kaptain Amerika on June 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM
The way the Sixth decided the case police across this nation would have been hamstrung. It’s ridiculous to think police could not have any interaction after giving Miranda unless the suspect immediately says they waive their right and wants to start talking. That is asinine to even think about.
ButterflyDragon on June 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM
If there was any doubt as to the constitutional credibility of the wise Latina, those doubts have officially been resolved.
The woman is totally wrong and we only have what? 30-40 more years worth of her “judgment” to look forward to?
GoldenEagle4444 on June 1, 2010 at 2:38 PM
So as I understand this. If I refuse to answer a single question, and actually do stand mute, not opening my mouth or responding in any way, then I am not availing myself of my right to remain silent.
Does that mean that there is now an approved text, like the Miranda warning in the first place, that I have to use to communicate my intention to remain silent?
“I believe that I will remain silent from here on out.”
“No, you have to tell us the right way.”
“What way?”
“We’re not required to tell you that.”
“I shall stand mute.”
“Nope, try again. But first, why not tell me why you slaughtered this kid.”
“I didn’t do it. I was in North Carolina at the time.”
Here is the thing. You have the right to remain silent, but the right must be enforced by YOU. YOU have to keep your mouth shut. You have to lean back, close your eyes, and ignore everything everyone else says or does.
This is a stupid case in the first place. What dummy decided that this was a smart challenge. It wasn’t. The crook talked himself into prison. Here’s a hint for those of you out there. When you keep your mouth shut, you actually have to keep your mouth shut.
Snake307 on June 1, 2010 at 2:39 PM
Or as Ron White says about being arrested while drunk:
“I had the right to remain silent but I did not have the ability.”
Guardian on June 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM
True. When you’re still high on PCP, and you just stabbed your girlfriend to death with a kitchen knife, you probably aren’t thinking so clearly. Is that the cop’s fault?
RBMN on June 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM
–If they are required to tell police they want to remain silent, haven’t they arguably waived their right to remain silent by saying something?
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Man, I’m getting more and more afraid of how much of our national security and character is in the hands of Justice Kennedy.
MassVictim on June 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM
I agree. The idea that this has to be invoked is silly. It’s always true until you actual open your mouth.
Rocks on June 1, 2010 at 2:42 PM
The common sense understanding of “the right to remain silent” should be that you have the right not to respond to questions, not that questions cannot be asked in the first place or that your responses, if you decide to give them, can’t be used.
The very fact that this is not our understanding of “the right to remain silent” shows just how far we have allowed our courts to take us from common sense and logic in their legislating from the bench.
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 2:44 PM
Yes, she is an idiot.
SCOTUS can fully reverse Miranda if they so decide. Why would she write as if the Miranda decision has been incorporated into the Constitution?
Even if Miranda was turned upside down by this, why would that matter? Would she have dissented to decisions because they turned Dred Scott upside down?
blink on June 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM
If these rights are taught
a) to natural born citizens in their social studies education, and
b) to naturalized citizens in their citizenship education program,
then the people who should know their rights will know them. For illegal aliens and foreign combatants outside these channels, too bad.
MassVictim on June 1, 2010 at 2:46 PM
Before the Miranda Warning existed, you could still keep your mouth shut, and ask for a lawyer. The only thing that changed was, educated people got a reminder of their rights, and ignorant people discovered that the US actually had a Constitution, and that Constitution says that you don’t have to incriminate yourself.
RBMN on June 1, 2010 at 2:48 PM
Yes. In order to exercise your right to remain silent, then you have to remain silent. If you don’t remain silent, then you’ve waived that right.
Do you agree?
blink on June 1, 2010 at 2:49 PM
Miranda is/was nothing more than an Activist, Liberal Warren Court decision.
jp on June 1, 2010 at 2:50 PM
Well, it’s easy for you to say. A police interrogation room is a highly intimidating environment and there are people who are easily frightened. For one reason or another, a person might find it hard to make an explicit demand to an authoritative figure. I can imagine a complete innocent sitting in the room, not demanding an end to the interrogation precisely because he fears that “taking the fifth” would cast suspicion on his person. After all, understood in our popular culture, only the guilty need to take the fifth.
This is an atrocious decision. How hard would be for the police to ask an suspect again whether he’d like to exercise his right? They’re professional. They follow procedure day in and day out. The burden shouldn’t be on a citizen could likely be completely unfamiliar with the law.
year_of_the_dingo on June 1, 2010 at 2:50 PM
5-4? On something as basic and common sense as this? Dear God we have to take back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. We CANNOT afford for this Admin. and Congress to choose another Justice.
Yakko77 on June 1, 2010 at 2:51 PM
–If they are required to tell police they want to remain silent, haven’t they arguably waived their right to remain silent by saying something?
–No, because the language that Ed cites from the opinion says “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.” So you’ve got to say that you want to remain silent, apparently.
Jimbo3 on June 1, 2010 at 2:52 PM
You’re not remaining silent in any scenario that comes up. Otherwise your right would be waved if the cop said “Bless you” in response to a sneeze and you thanked him.
You’re remaining silent in regards to providing information that may incriminate you. You have the right to refuse to self-incriminate.
amerpundit on June 1, 2010 at 2:54 PM
It’s pretty clear from the Miranda warning:
Even though you have the right to remain silent, if you talk, that’s your problem.
Kiliman on June 1, 2010 at 2:55 PM
When one of the Conservatives on the SCOTUS retires, how are we going to get another Conservative nominee confirmed with the Dems becoming so crazy that they will be willing to filibuster at the drop of a hat? At that point, the SCOTUS will become down-right dangerous.
mydh12 on June 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM
You asked about the right to remain silent. You didn’t ask about the right to stop an interrogation.
You just lost your case.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Now there is an example of protecting criminal’s rights I could agree with.
LincolntheHun on June 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM
You’re confusing this with invoking your 5th amendment right, as a witness. You can’t invoke the 5th selectively, because that would allow you to testify only to the parts of the truth you like. But, talking to police interrogators, you can speak as selectively as you want. If you want to answer, answer. If you don’t want to answer, don’t. But, if you start talking, skilled investigators will probably be able to steer you over to their topic.
RBMN on June 1, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Soon, all the idiot, lefty politicians that screamed about the Campaign Finance Restriction Decision, will be screaming about this. They don’t even stop to consider what the ramifications of the decisions are, and what they are screaming about, just that those “Conservative Supreme Court Judges” are taking the law into their own hands and ruining their Country. I am convinced that my 8th grader, who was recently selected as one of the “top ten students”, (in her class of 300), knows more about the Constitution, our Laws, and has more common sense then 3/4 of the United States Congress.
Susanboo on June 1, 2010 at 2:59 PM
There is no hope with the current party in charge, and their insistence on a scorched earth policy.
MassVictim on June 1, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Those who are so easily intimidated aren’t going to remain a pillar of silence, either.
And simply remaining silent without vocally invoking the fifth is easier as the authority figure is demanding answers? Only the guilty have something to hide like that in our same culture.
They read your your rights. They’re legally required to notify you that you have the right to remain silent. There’s no requirement for them to engage the power of telepathy.
And let’s remember something else. The specific case involved the suspect actually answering questions in a curt manner. He even admitted to shooting the boy.
He wasn’t remaining silent directly or indirectly. He was talking, albeit in a cut manner.
amerpundit on June 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM
Well, let’s see. They were smart enough to find, attain, or earn the money for the drugs. They were smart enough to know where to score the drugs, without being caught. They were smart enough to use the drugs. So anything after that….even murder, is excusable because they don’t have the ability to think, or understand?
Is this really a world the liberals want?
capejasmine on June 1, 2010 at 3:01 PM
I’m not confusing anything. If you speak, then you’ve waived any right to remain silent. That is a logical fact.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 3:05 PM
Maybe if you have it in mind to embark on a life of crime, you should take a few law courses first. I mean, is that too much to ask if this is going to be your choice of career?
Cicero43 on June 1, 2010 at 3:06 PM
As of late, I am sorry to say, I am beginning to think that “yes” it really is.
Susanboo on June 1, 2010 at 3:08 PM
There is no requirement for anyone to make any demands to an authoritative figure.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM
So if you say “Bless You” to a cop’s sneeze then you’ve waived your right? How about if you trip and say “damn” as you fall? And if you need medical help suddenly while in custody, there goes your right?
Hardly. You’re remaining silent in regards to answering questions that may incriminate you.
Just like you can request an attorney without giving up your right to remain silent.
amerpundit on June 1, 2010 at 3:09 PM
What about that, “Anything you say can and will be used against you,” part is unclear? I don’t quite get the specific invocation of rights, but, if you don’t want to have stuff used against you, how ’bout shutting the f@¢k up? You know, a closed mouth gathers no life sentences? That kind of thing?
9-0 definitely!!
Pablo Snooze on June 1, 2010 at 3:12 PM
You do not have the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney. The fifth amendment states “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”
That right has led to the Miranda warning for idiots who don’t know what the 5th amendment means.
barnone on June 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM
I think, just to be safe that no rights are ever trampled upon, the police should not be able to question anyone at any time. And, if someone were to start confessing, the police should stop them and inform them that they should remain silent. If the person continues to speak, the police should interrupt them again. And, a third time if necessary. AFter that third warning, if the person still confesses, we should look to all teh circumstances to see if that person was coerced – in most cases likely so b/c they obviously did not understand their rights.
It used to be that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Now, liberals want it to be that ignorance of the law is an excuse for everything.
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM
Let me make this real simple to everyone.
If you are not silent, then you’ve waived your right to be silent.
But why is this important? This doesn’t mean that you can then be forced to incriminate yourself.
I think many commenters are confusing the right to remain silent with the right to end an interrogation – a right which does not exist in the Constitution.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM
All it takes to end an interrogation is four words — “I want a lawyer.”
Read “Homicide” by David Simon, a book that was written about life in 1989.
The investigator can ask, “Are you sure?” But once a suspect says “I want a lawyer,” that’s it. End of questioning.
This is the right decision, and I submit that if Patrick agrees with it, it’s pretty good.
either orr on June 1, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Wow. If this had gone the other way, it would be a “get out of jail free” card for thousands of convicted criminals who could then claim that they somehow “intended” to remain silent, even though they didn’t, and even though they were properly Mirandized before they started talking. There isn’t a convict in the U.S. that wouldn’t appeal his case, and lots of them would win under this precedent.
Nice try by the defense attorney in this case, but thankfully the Supremes had more sense.
rockmom on June 1, 2010 at 3:20 PM
While it’s true that you don’t have a Constitutional right to remain silent, you do have a Supreme Court granted right to remain silent. That’s the right I’m mentioning in my comments.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Gotta disagree with ya Ed on this one. Your line of reasoning is based on the faulty premise that a typical arrestee has the slightest inkling of an understanding of what Miranda entails.
My Gawd.. lawyers can’t agree on what the meaning of is is. Uninformed consent is no consent at all.
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 3:23 PM
If you don’t at all talk, then you are exercising your right, with or without telling them.
If you wish to make your intention to remain silent known, then yes, you have to communicate that somehow. But the right to remain silent is specifically as it relates to helping convict yourself. It’s not about calling a police officer a Jew who starts wars. That’s not illegal, just stupid.
Saying you want to invoke your right to remain silent isn’t something that can be used against you in the court of law. Same with lawyering up.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM
Every conservative justice and Kennedy need to be sealed in clean rooms with doctors on 24 hr standby for the next 3 years- unbelievable it was 5-4.
What a disgusting turn of historical events that this crackpot in the White House will replace 3 old leftists with 3 young leftists- if we’re lucky!
jjshaka on June 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Why bother to even catch the criminals at all? Just let them all go. Refer to my post at 3:08 above, where I quote capejasmine.
Susanboo on June 1, 2010 at 3:30 PM
They spell it out for you very clearly. “Anything you say can and will be used against you.” What’s not to get? And why is shutting your mouth harder to understand than asking for a lawyer?
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Some of them anyway!
Susanboo on June 1, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Miranda rights were never foreseen by the Framers. This decision is meaningless.
Tim Burton on June 1, 2010 at 3:40 PM
That’s actually true, because when you take the 5th, you’re admitting you did something wrong and are invoking your right not to incriminate yourself. The 5th doesn’t apply if talking would keep you from admitting to something incriminating. It’s not the same as remaining silent.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Wise Latina.
Heh.
hillbillyjim on June 1, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Here is an excellent video explaining why you should NEVER talk to the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Lengthy, and there is a part II. Know your rights!
GnuBreed on June 1, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Now into the real world. The majority of arrestee’s initially invoke that right. Then the “games” of the interrogation begin. And the first order of business is to break down that invocation to remain silent. To which the po po have become quite adept.
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 3:50 PM
Actually, you don’t really have to affirmatively invoke a right to silence – you could just exercise it by, you know, staying silent. Hard to accidentally confess that way.
holdfast on June 1, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Just b/c you have a right and fail to use it because you are stupid, ignorant or uneducated does not mean that a constitutional violation has occurred.
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Yes and no. For the people who have not taken the time to understand their rights and how to exercise them, yes, they can put themselves into a situation of being “tricked” into talking.
But all it takes is a few simple words to put an end to it all. “I’m not talking to you guys without my attorney present”, or a simple, “I choose to remain silent”.
At that point, they are violating your rights if they continue to try to get you to talk. It’s that simple.
ButterflyDragon on June 1, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Since the invocation of the right to have counsel present is supposed to shut down all further questioning, I’m curious to know where you get your inside knowledge of “what really happens.” You’re asserting that most police interrogators violate the law.
Got a linky??
Cicero43 on June 1, 2010 at 4:00 PM
So?
blink on June 1, 2010 at 4:01 PM
“you got nuthin on me, copper!”
search4truth on June 1, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Actually, you don’t really have to affirmatively invoke a right to silence – you could just exercise it by, you know, staying silent. Hard to accidentally confess that way.
holdfast on June 1, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Don’t look like approach works after a 3 hour work over.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf
roflmao
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Sorry, but that’s not the real world. In the real world, if police don’t accept your invocation of your rights, then everything you say gets thrown out including all of the evidence gained as a result of what you said.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:13 PM
“Largely silent” doesn’t actually mean silent. He gave monosyllabic answers throughout the interview, from the very beginning.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM
“Largely silent” doesn’t actually mean silent. He gave monosyllabic answers throughout the interview, from the very beginning.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM
THAT’S THE COURT WORDING “He was largely silent during the 3-hour interro-gation, but near the end, he answered “yes”
Basically he was exercising his right but the Court and the po po didn’t see it like that. Cause ya can’t remain silent unless ya break that silence to state the obvious.
roflmao
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Which is why most law enforcement video tape or audio tape everything. It is the first “line of defense” every halfassed lawyer used to get their client out of anything.
So – they simply recorded everything – like police cars NEEDED to have video cameras in their cars to give as much accuracy possible to detaining and arrests.
Police are required to READ your Miranda rights, not explain everything within the law – for that could be mitigating in itself.
Cops generally use various techniques to get someone to tell them something about a case they are investigating. It is true – leverage like “we can datain you for 24/48 hours until your lawyer gets here” is used, however – that is mormally in cases where they have some form of proof to keep you detained – knowing a lawsuit is right around the corner.
And if you dont think criminals know the system… and specifically say “I want to talk to my lawyer” then nothing else.. you are being fooled. They know for a fact a cop cant retain them on nothing they say – but other supporting evidence. It is worth the few hundred bucks to wait for a lawyer, take a day off – then resume their criminal behavior.
Know what is even more important – when being questioned – ask “Am I being charged with anything?” One can be arrested, Mirandized – and never charged of anything.
Odie1941 on June 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM
I don’t know why you find this so funny. He was talking the entire time. That’s a fact that you seem to be ignoring.
That’s not silent.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Roflmao
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Yes. The 5-4 vote reflects the critical importance of any appointment to the court that might change the current balance on the political spectrum.
novaculus on June 1, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Again, he was not silent. You can’t be silent and say, “yes,” “no,” and “I don’t know.”
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:41 PM
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Again, he was not silent. You can’t be silent and say, “yes,” “no,” and “I don’t know.”
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:41 PM
so for 2 hours and 54 minutes ya remain silent and in the last six minutes ya grunt once or twice say a hand full of uh and ah and the big finally at the 3 hour mark ya answer YES.
and the court says “Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent.”
Gawd help us.
roflmao
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM
They would need about a dozen bags, all labeled in different languages :-)
MJBrutus on June 1, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Dan859 on June 1, 2010 at 4:59 PM
Like Tater salad says, you may have the right to remain silent but you may not have the ability to.
mike_NC9 on June 1, 2010 at 5:05 PM
You’re having a reading comprehension failure. This wasn’t just something he spurted out after nearly three hours, as that was just the “yes” that incriminated him. He was giving those answers the entire time: yes, no, I don’t know.
Also note, he wasn’t saying that he was silent and thus invoked his right, he said he was uncommunicative, or as Ed put it, passive aggressive muttering.
He was asked if he understood his rights, said yes, and then continued to talk with short answers until he was tricked until actually telling the truth.
Now, Justice Kennedy is also saying that even if he had been silent the entire time that it doesn’t prove he’d invoked his right (which isn’t the same as saying this man actually had remained silent). And in the sense that it didn’t stop the interview, that’s true, but in the sense that he’s actually exercising his right, it clearly isn’t.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 5:10 PM
In our daily life, we constantly communicate non-verbally. Refraining from speaking does convey messages. If you wife doesn’t talk to you, you know she’s mad at you. If you try to hit on a woman at a bar and she ignores you, you know she’s not interested. If some Mormon guy tries to talk to you and you just look the other way, you’d certainly expect him to get the hint and leave you alone.
Essentially, you and others are arguing there’s a massive and glaring distinction between “not cooperating with the intention of not cooperating” and “refusing verbally to cooperate with the intention of not cooperating.” Do bear in mind that the right to remain silence traces back to the fifth amendment, which state “[no person] shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The idea that compulsion can only be made evident by an explicit, vocalized objection from the person to whom the pressure is applied is–well, not very well compelling. It treats the act of asserting of one’s right in a complete vacuum, when in reality it must occur in the same environment of that to which it would grant relief. A person under pressure to confess will feel pressured to not assert his right. In such a schema, the right guaranteed by the fifth amendment in a sense ceases to be a right at all–except as a prohibition against physical torture–since you don’t enjoy it unless you clear a hurdle.
The defendant in the case didn’t say “I shot the boy.” He was asked, “Do you believe in God?” He said “yes.” He was then asked, “Do you pray to God?”, to which he said yes. “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”, to which he also said yes. How do we know from that he meant “It was I who shot that boy dead?” Have we suddenly mastered ESP? Maybe he didn’t hear the question right. Maybe he meant he was sorry because he was partly responsible. This is nitpicking but, by God, are we going to send someone to the gallows based on that?
year_of_the_dingo on June 1, 2010 at 5:10 PM
The Court of Appeals found that the state court unreasonably determined the facts because “the evidence demonstrates that Thompkins was silent for two hours and forty-five minutes.”
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 5:13 PM
The Court of Appeals found that the state court unreasonably determined the facts because “the evidence demonstrates that Thompkins was silent for two hours and forty-five minutes.”
donabernathy on June 1, 2010 at 5:25 PM
In liberal land, if the suspect starts talking on his own, the officer should immediately close his eyes, cover his ears with his hands, and start singing La La La loudly!
Dasher on June 1, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Soto was just making stuff up in her opinion. Her dissent sounds like the contents of the ACLU’s garbage. Now police need to read minds and acquire degrees in body language. Maybe that chick from O’Reilly can help them. Sotominor, Stevens, Sinsbad, and Breyer’s Ice Cream are liberal crack heads. Kagan will smoke crack equally well.
andy85719 on June 1, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Yes, but the Court cites to evidence that the Circuit Court’s description of what happened was not true. You are either silent, or you are not. Answering mulitiple questions over a 3 hour period is not being silent.
Moreover, being silent does not mean that the police have to stop asking questions. And, frankly, the right to silence should mean just that – you have the right to keep your mouth shut. It should not mean that you say you want to be silent, but then get to say things and have those admissions ignored. That is typical lefty logic.
The very fact that we are having this discussion is idiotic. The idea that saying “i want to be silent” somehow means that the police can’t ask you any questions is idiotic. Just don’t respond to the questions and you have solved the issue. Let’s stop coddling everyone and making the gov’t the mommy for everyone. You have a right to be silent. If you are too stupid to actually be silent, tough.
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 5:32 PM
It’s amazing how times change. The Supreme Court used to be, and rightly so, the constitution’s enemy. Now, it is the branch that may ultimately save our liberty! We hang on it’s every decision.
JellyToast on June 1, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Ummmm, criminal suspects are not criminals. We do live in a society that believes in innocence until proven guilty. During an police interrogation the person question is still a member in-good-standing of the public while the questioner is a servant of the public. We pay these people. Is it too much to ask for them to take special care so the fifth amendment is respected? Why does law enforcement need confession in the first place? We’re not living in an age where we determine guilty or innocence based on whether someone’s feet burst into flame or not. We have science. Convictions should be reached based on solid, objective, verifiable evidences–and not with some statement obtained by invoking the Lord’s name in vain.
year_of_the_dingo on June 1, 2010 at 5:39 PM
And yet that contradicts other evidence that he was saying: yes, no, and I don’t know along with other nonverbal communications.
On redirect, Helgert actually says something different, that Thompkins provided verbal and non verbal answers up until that last 15 minutes, at which point the officers tried the spiritual routine and got him to actually communicate something useful.
But again, Justice Kennedy is himself saying that the right to remain silence is only invoked so long as the man’s silence is or until the man actually states his intent to invoke his right.
And as others have pointed out, your right to remain silent only means that your words can’t be used against you, not that police can’t get information from you.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 5:44 PM
They read him his rights and asked if he understood. What more do you want? Your point seems to be that the police should not even question anyone or attempt to get a confession. That is silly.
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 5:45 PM
To the people who believe that being “mostly” silent should mean that he invoked his right and the confession should not be admissible, a few questions:
1) how long does one have to be silent before it is considered an “automatic” invocation of the right to remain silent? Refusal to answer one questions? Fifteen minutes? an hour?
2) Does the clock re-start if the suspect answers a question? In other words, if your answer to #1 above is 15 minutes, and a suspect is quiet for 10 minutes but then answers a question, does the clock re-start or does he just have to then be silent for another 5 minutes after that to reach the 15-minute mark?
3) if your answer to #1 above was 15 minutes, and the suspect is silent for 14:59 seconds and then begins a confession is it admissible?
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 5:52 PM
4) Do things like bathroom breaks count toward the time-clock for an automatic invocation of the right to remain silent?
Monkeytoe on June 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM
So you have a problem with how the jury analyzed the evidence – not with the fact that the evidence was introduced.
Actually, do you know enough about the case to second guess the jury?
blink on June 1, 2010 at 5:54 PM
A bit more on what he said during that 2 hours and 45 minutes:
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 5:55 PM
Yes, remaining silent for 2 hours and 45 minutes IS exercising ya right to remain silent.
But ya know what?
When you answer police questions ya aint exercising your right to remain silent.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 5:57 PM
You’re right. But admitted criminals are criminals.
blink on June 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM
You’re getting it totally wrong. Liberals BELIEVE in crime. They rally around people like Mumia Abdul Jamal because they know he killed a cop. They like Bill Ayers because he is guilty as sin. In liberal land, suspects brag about their crimes since they earn them street-creed. The greater the crime, the greater the love. These people are treasonous, evil, and insane. There’s no point in bringing them into the matter at hand.
I really think the present debate is between conservatives and libertarians. I count myself in the latter camp and find it hard to comprehend how conservatives are celebrating this gratuitous expansion of state power as a victory.
year_of_the_dingo on June 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM
1. How is that invoking God’s name in vain? The man killed someone and when God was brought up felt guilty for it. The guy’s not innocent. They had better evidence than one yes.
2. CSI has ruined juries forever. Not every case has a bucket load of science (praise be science!) to back up accusations. Sometimes we have nothing but completely circumstantial evidence and CSI fans are acquitting by the boatload because of it.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 6:02 PM
I don’t at all see how it is an expansion. He could have used his right. He didn’t. He could have invoked it and possibly stopped the interview. He didn’t.
Also, he’s a murderer.
Justice all around.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 6:06 PM
Yep. I guess the dissenters don’t understand the meaning of the part of the Miranda warning that goes“you have the right to remain silent and anything you say can and will be used against you”.
Sheeesh.
vnjagvet on June 1, 2010 at 6:13 PM
You’re right here, Ed. This should have been a 9-0 slam dunk. However, as seen by the many Democrat Party scandals, prison terms, etc., the Left (or the Demodonks whichever) would prefer to make the lawmen’s job more difficult. That way their supporters can stay out of prison and vote Demodonk.
SeniorD on June 1, 2010 at 6:18 PM
You must be a lawyer because at this point you are parsing the meaning of is just like that disbarred lawyer from the 90′s.
chemman on June 1, 2010 at 6:35 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »