Criminal suspects should speak up if they want to preserve their right to remain silent, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. Conservative justices ruled for police in the latest test of the court's famous Miranda rule and shifted the burden to suspects to invoke their right to refuse questioning.
The court ruled 5 to 4 that a Michigan defendant who incriminated himself in a fatal shooting by saying one word after nearly three hours of questioning had given up his right to silence, and that the statement could be used against him at trial.
"Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
washingtonpost.com
I'm confused. Okay, so you're TOLD that you 'have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you'. And the suspect SAYS something. This ruling just confirms that it can be used against them? Just seems redundant, or am I missing something?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this decision, coming from THIS law enforcers perspective.
This decision clarifies the question of the admissibility of testimony when someone decides that they do not want to verbally or non-verbally invoke or waive their rights.
It also closes a loophole so that it cannot be used in future defense to get an admittedly guilty person off of a crime. We don't need more criminals getting off on BS technicalities.
Kudos to the Supreme Court.
I need to read the dissent to see what Sotomayor says, but I think that once a defendant invokes his Miranda rights, it used to be that the police must stop asking questions period. In this case, they asked him a question after he invoked his right to remain silent. I agree--that's HIS problem that he chose to speak!
This ruling is just obnoxious. If a suspect refuses to speak a word after being advised of their right to remain silent, its clear that they are invoking the right. Its a catch 22 if you have to speak to invoke your right, but speaking automatically waives your right. While its not a huge issue, I don't like the government playing tricks to get around constitutional protections.
This ruling is just obnoxious. If a suspect refuses to speak a word after being advised of their right to remain silent, its clear that they are invoking the right. Its a catch 22 if you have to speak to invoke your right, but speaking automatically waives your right. While its not a huge issue, I don't like the government playing tricks to get around constitutional protections.
Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority for going further than needed to decide the case before it. True, but it is kind of odd to make that criticism in a Miranda case, as Miranda itself is the exemplar of going further than necessary to decide the case.
We don't need more criminals getting off on BS technicalities.
We also don't need the civil liberties and civil rights of people infringed either.
I'm not the biggest fan of our justice system, but I have a hard time seeing how this will really infringe on the civil liberties of anyone. This is the first time the court has had occasion to address this particular issue in the 45 years since Miranda, and only a perfect storm of circumstances would actually lead to a different result post-Berghuis than pre-.
In this particular case, I agree with you. However, I was more addressing the poster's comment on how the Supreme Court should rule to help criminals get off on technicalities. I find this somewhat dangerous for defendants. This is especially the case when the Supreme Court has made rulings such as criminals do not have a Constitutional right to access DNA evidence to appeal their conviction, despite prosecutors using it to go after people who committed crimes years before the technology was available.
We also don't need the civil liberties and civil rights of people infringed either.
In this particular case, I agree with you. However, I was more addressing the poster's comment on how the Supreme Court should rule to help criminals get off on technicalities. I find this somewhat dangerous for defendants. This is especially the case when the Supreme Court has made rulings such as criminals do not have a Constitutional right to access DNA evidence to appeal their conviction, despite prosecutors using it to go after people who committed crimes years before the technology was available.
A Michigan man will continue serving a life sentence for murder after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that he gave up his rights against self-incrimination because he did not explicitly tell police he wanted to remain silent after his arrest.
The 5-4 decision overturns a ruling by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and reinstates Van Chester Thompkins' conviction for a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield.
Detroit attorney Elizabeth Jacobs, who argued the case for Thompkins, 33, in front of the Supreme Court in March, said the ruling is "very disappointing." The court is "diminishing Miranda rights as we know them," Jacobs said.
"...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law..."
DONT CONFESS THINGS TO THE POLICE. HOW HARD IS THIS?
They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.
They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.
So... Deuce is completely right on this. Don't confess to a crime if you don't want to be caught! I thought that was common sense.
But he later answered "yes" when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down."
They interrogated him for 2 hours straight until he said something.
Right. And I totally agree that they shouldn't do that. Police procedures should be clarified on the subject.
But he was guilty and he told them he was guilty. He waived his right to silence by speaking to them.
He did not actually confess. He got caught with a "trick" question:
First point: I don't feel bad for the guy at all. He is almost 100 % certainly guilty. The issue to me is not whether justice is served in his particular case, but whether the ruling itself is right. Short answer...I am torn, I can see both sides. You are told anything you say can be used against you, but as the little of the dissent mentioned in the article says, having to speak to say you wish to remain silent is counter intuitive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?