627PCFan
Member
Mods: I think this info is usefull to CC'ers and other people that might be involved in gun related incidents-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-06-01-supreme-court-miranda-rights_N.htm
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday enhanced prosecutors' ability to assert that a suspect waived his right to remain silent even when he did not say so.
The decision in a murder case from Michigan broke along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion joined by fellow conservatives.
The four liberals dissented in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who warned that, "Today's decision turns Miranda upside down."
The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling — which protects suspects against self-incrimination and requires the warnings police give people in custody to let them know they have the right to remain silent — has been deeply woven into American culture. Yet, it remains controversial, as recent debate over Miranda rights for terrorism suspects shows.
Tuesday's case did not touch on that controversy but rather addressed ambiguous signals a suspect may send regarding whether he wants an interrogation to stop after he has been properly read his rights.
The Michigan case specifically tested what happens when a suspect says barely anything during questioning but near the end blurts out an incriminating statement, and then claims that he had wanted to remain silent and that the statement was not made voluntarily.
Van Chester Thompkins, accused of first-degree murder in the 2000 shooting death of Samuel Morris outside a mall in Southfield, Mich., said little to police during a three-hour interrogation, at the start of which he had been read the Miranda warnings. He never explicitly said he wanted to stay silent and he never asked for a lawyer.
At one point, an officer asked, "Do you believe in God?" Thompkins said yes. The officer then asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins said yes and looked away, according to the record in the case.
A jury found Thompkins guilty of murder and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
On appeal, Thompkins said he invoked his right to remain silent by refusing to answer questions for a long period of time and that the interrogation should have ended before he made his incriminating remark.
A U.S. appeals court agreed, rejecting arguments from Michigan officials that there was an implied waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision.
"Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent," Kennedy wrote. "As a general proposition, the law can presume that an individual who, with a full understanding of his or her rights, acts in a manner inconsistent with their exercise has made a deliberate choice to relinquish the protection those rights afford."
Kennedy said Thompkins waived his right to remain silent by answering the officer's questions.
He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Sotomayor called their decision "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination."
In her most passionate opinion to date, Sotomayor, who joined the court last year, said the majority decision undercuts the "heavy burden" the government should carry to show that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right against self-incrimination.
Sotomayor said the decision also creates an "unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions" for law enforcement agencies and trial judges to follow.
She was joined in Berghuis v. Thompkins by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-06-01-supreme-court-miranda-rights_N.htm
WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday enhanced prosecutors' ability to assert that a suspect waived his right to remain silent even when he did not say so.
The decision in a murder case from Michigan broke along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion joined by fellow conservatives.
The four liberals dissented in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who warned that, "Today's decision turns Miranda upside down."
The 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling — which protects suspects against self-incrimination and requires the warnings police give people in custody to let them know they have the right to remain silent — has been deeply woven into American culture. Yet, it remains controversial, as recent debate over Miranda rights for terrorism suspects shows.
Tuesday's case did not touch on that controversy but rather addressed ambiguous signals a suspect may send regarding whether he wants an interrogation to stop after he has been properly read his rights.
The Michigan case specifically tested what happens when a suspect says barely anything during questioning but near the end blurts out an incriminating statement, and then claims that he had wanted to remain silent and that the statement was not made voluntarily.
Van Chester Thompkins, accused of first-degree murder in the 2000 shooting death of Samuel Morris outside a mall in Southfield, Mich., said little to police during a three-hour interrogation, at the start of which he had been read the Miranda warnings. He never explicitly said he wanted to stay silent and he never asked for a lawyer.
At one point, an officer asked, "Do you believe in God?" Thompkins said yes. The officer then asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins said yes and looked away, according to the record in the case.
A jury found Thompkins guilty of murder and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
On appeal, Thompkins said he invoked his right to remain silent by refusing to answer questions for a long period of time and that the interrogation should have ended before he made his incriminating remark.
A U.S. appeals court agreed, rejecting arguments from Michigan officials that there was an implied waiver of Thompkins' right to remain silent.
The Supreme Court reversed that decision.
"Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent," Kennedy wrote. "As a general proposition, the law can presume that an individual who, with a full understanding of his or her rights, acts in a manner inconsistent with their exercise has made a deliberate choice to relinquish the protection those rights afford."
Kennedy said Thompkins waived his right to remain silent by answering the officer's questions.
He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Sotomayor called their decision "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination."
In her most passionate opinion to date, Sotomayor, who joined the court last year, said the majority decision undercuts the "heavy burden" the government should carry to show that a defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right against self-incrimination.
Sotomayor said the decision also creates an "unworkable and conflicting set of presumptions" for law enforcement agencies and trial judges to follow.
She was joined in Berghuis v. Thompkins by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
