And America’s slow slide into a police state continues with Republicans Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts voting in favor of it.
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision Tuesday that suspects under interrogation must tell police that they wish to remain silent, as opposed to simply remaining silent.
Van Chester Thompkins challenged his murder conviction on the grounds that by remaining silent for most of his interrogation, he was invoking his right to remain silent. During his interrogation, he was read his list of rights as mandated by the Miranda Supreme Court ruling, but answered "yes" when a detective asked if he prayed for forgiveness for the shooting. He made the statement more than two hours into the interrogation.
The court reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and upheld a Michigan state court ruling that rejected Thompkins' Miranda claim
You can read the decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins here.
In the opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, the court ruled that by speaking to the police, Thompkins waived his Miranda right to remain silent.
3 comments:
Invoking your right to remain silent means you remain silent. If you start talking then they can/will use it against you. Seems pretty logical.
Why should how long you waited to speak matter any?
I guess you trust the police more than I do. I want as many civil rights as possible, I don't want to give them up.
If I say that I want to remain silent have I waived my right by not remaining silent? It would seem so.
Post a Comment