Miranda Clarification
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.
Labels: info for the police
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
16 Comments:
There is caselaw that says when a person asks for a lawyer, it should have the effect of halting all questioning. (A lawyer need not be produced immediately, but questioning should stop.). I wonder if someone asks for their lawyer whether that's enough, or if they must be more explicit...
Does that mean I don't have to stand on one leg while rubbing my stomach and patting my head and saying mother may I ask a question of the offender?
Are we actually going to try to ascertain guilt rather than engage in an excruciating examination of proper procedure?
I did see something interesting recently, a group of prisoners coming into 019 lockup, with their sandwiches waiting on the counter top. No pickles, tomatoes or lettuce though that might be coming next.
Ho Ho Ho Looks like the counry's going down the shitter real fast...
I see no issue with this. It's easy enough to say, "I'm not saying anything, i wish to speak to an attorney," as opposed to sitting silent like an idiot, giving the police a hard time, or mumbling unintelligibly. If I was arrested, I certainly would want no gray area to expose me to any more liability than I'm already accountable for for doing whatever it is I did to get arrested in the first place, even if I know the arrest isn't legit. One can't expect the cops to arrive on scene and know everything.
-a law-abiding citizen
Read minds? Most of those clowns don't have minds.
If you're too stupid to say, "Officer I have nothing to say without a lawyer present.", you deserve whatever happens to you.
Finally some common sense from the Supreme Court. Can you imagine if they had affirmed the lower court's ruling? How long would we have to wait before deciding the subject was uncommunicative? Would we have to put him on the clock? Start timing him? Would every interview have to be videotaped so we could prove he started communicating in the allotted amount of time?
There is caselaw that says when a person asks for a lawyer, it should have the effect of halting all questioning. (A lawyer need not be produced immediately, but questioning should stop.). I wonder if someone asks for their lawyer whether that's enough, or if they must be more explicit...
6/02/2010 12:25:00 AM
>>
Did you read the topic and the link, or did you just want to say anything to be the first post?
Suspects must specifically tell police they are going to remain silent.
Suspects must TELL police they want a lawyer, if they want a lawyer. These are two separate declarations, according to this decision.
Simply telling police you want a lawyer is NOT enough to stop an interrogation, if you do not tell them you are not going to talk to them.
Anyone acquainted with police work or law is aware that the defendant's legal mouthpiece came up with that excuse. We know Van Chester (that's right, that's his first name) Thompkins (the defendant) has an IQ below room temperature. So he couldn't create that legal excuse. He demonstrated his low IQ when he told his attorney he didn't understand his rights.
The appellate justices (formerly legal mouthpieces themselves) thought the excuse created and connived by Thompkins' attorney was shrewed and clever, so they reversed the conviction.
Hell, even Sotomayor thinks it's a good idea to say nothing to the police or the prosecuting attorney.
Don't even tell the police you want to remain silent. Just tell 'em you want a legal mouthpiece to do your lying for you.
That's why I always told my arrestees: You have the right to remain silent. I suggest you use it!!
Man, I don't miss the circus, but I sure do miss the clowns!!!!
Be safe! One and all!
WTF was that Appeals Court thinking? It's nice to see that Sotomayor is showing her true colors right off the bat. Granted it was a 5-4 decision but perhaps some of that vote is related to stare decisis and the natural tendency for the Court to leave a lesser Court's decision stand. The nitwit in the instance case never once invoked his right to counsel. Had he done so, Anonymous at 12:25AM, date, is correct. The questioning would have/should have come to a complete halt. Under the dissenter's opinion in this case, every defendant would be presumed to have invoked his right to remain silent and, his right to counsel. The net effect of that would be that the police are absolutely forbidden to ask any suspect ANY question. We must not be getting the entire case summary here. Even I, a cynical pr*ck after "25 yrs of vaudeville and a pension" find it hard to believe that there were four idiots on the USSC whose thinking was THAT screwed up. I been wrong before though
God bless the working coppers and F*ck King Richy!
Miranda was a piece of shit who raped and killed a woman. What ever happened to the dead victim's rights?
Miranda is bad case law anyway. NOWHERE in the Constitution is this required.
@Peter North Jr.
Uh, try the 5th & 6th amendments tough guy.
@Anonymous at 05:38. Jeez, I hope you're not really a cop.
Miranda was a scumbag, but he didn't kill anybody. He was convicted of rape and kidnapping of an 18 year old woman. Miranda was retried in 1967 for the same crime after the initial conviction was overturned, and sentenced to prison for 20 to 30 years. He was paroled in 1972 after five years. He was stabbed to death during an argument in a bar in 1976.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about Miranda. Miranda is only case law.
This is truly great. It's about time the playing field was leveled.
Post a Comment
<< Home