Miranda

[Chicopee John]

Supreme Court: Suspects Still Have the Right to Remain Silent, But Must Say So

 

Published June 01, 2010 Associated Press

 

 

WASHINGTON -- 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 ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent.

 

But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

 

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police," Kennedy said. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court's newest member, wrote a strongly worded dissent for the court's liberals, saying the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."

 

"Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which counterintuitively, requires them to speak," she said. "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded."

 

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.

 

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.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Well it's a small step but good.

WSS

[VaporTrail]

Why do you believe it's good?

[Kosar_For_President]

I still can't believe people don't ask for their lawyer right when they sit down in a station. Guilty or not.

[Chicopee John]

I still can't believe people don't ask for their lawyer right when they sit down in a station. Guilty or not.

 

Ever watch, "The First 48"? I, too, am amazed.

 

[Pumpkin Eater]

Or why don't they just get up and leave? instead of spending 9 hours in an interrogation room without being arrested.

[Westside Steve]

Why do you believe it's good?

 

 

Hey VT sorry I missed ya.

Actually I think most (or many) of the new additions to the constitution meant to give criminals more rights are harmful to society.

I'd rather err on the side of public safety.

 

 

I don't understand how the right to not be truthful is better for anyone involved.

 

An innocent person cannot incriminate himself.

That right is to protect the guilty.

 

Why should we do that?

 

WSS

[VaporTrail]

I don't understand how the right to not be truthful is better for anyone involved.

 

But that's not what it is. It's just the right to remain silent. I can't stand cops. I think they're the worst f*cking gang in America. Do I rely on them? Yes. Were people in my family cops? Yes. Am I a hypocrite? Yes. However, the ones that are crooked assholes, those cops are what that amendment is protecting you from!

 

An innocent person cannot incriminate himself.

 

If you get pulled over for speeding, even if you weren't, if you say, "I might've been going 5 over," you can get a ticket for that. This case isn't very serious, but it's the most prominent situation I can think of for when it comes into play.

 

That right is to protect the guilty.

 

I respectfully disagree.

[Westside Steve]

 

 

An innocent person cannot incriminate himself.

 

If you get pulled over for speeding, even if you weren't, if you say, "I might've been going 5 over," you can get a ticket for that. This case isn't very serious, but it's the most prominent situation I can think of for when it comes into play.

 

999 times out of 1000 you were clocked; you're getting a ticket anyway.

But that has nothing to do with Miranda.

I figure if you weren't speeding say so.

 

 

But if you wanna go with examples remember the asshole out west that murdered the college girl.

A known sex offender.

She was missing.

They found her blood in his car.

He clammed up.

Now might she have been alive somewhere? Possible.

Do I think he has a "right" to remain silent?

No and I (as well as you) would torture the shit out of him for that info.

And rightfully so.

 

 

 

That right is to protect the guilty.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

 

As you will.

 

The prosecutors job is to convict the guy who committed a crime.

The defenss attorney's job is to get his client of regardless of what he did.

That's a fact.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Wow. Just wow.

 

You don't believe citizens have basic Constitutional rights that have been the hallmark of our legal system for centuries. You don't believe in the presumption of innocence. You don't believe in the Bill of Rights. You seem to think that allowing a defendant a lawyer to make their case is some sort of injustice. And you believe in allowing the police to torture the shit out of citizens if they think they might be guilty of something, and imagine that we all would too.

 

Steve, there's no other way around this: you have fascist beliefs. Those are fascist beliefs. And that's not hyperbole. You have fascist beliefs.

 

And as Vapor pointed out, the idea that an innocent person can't incriminate himself ...are you 12? Do you ever leave that bar of yours? What an idiotic thing to imagine. And I can only use the word "imagine" because "think" or "believe" would be giving you too much credit.

 

Also funny how you argue almost daily that government can't do anything right and is full of incompetence and graft, and yet you can't imagine the government employees we call the police or the FBI could ever do anything wrong. Yes, they always know who is guilty. Why bother with lawyers or evidence or a trial when you can just torture the people you know to be guilty already.

 

And according to you, this is all erring on the side of public safety. Oh, man.

 

This is perhaps the most detestable and unsupportable thing you've ever written.

 

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Wow. Just wow.

 

You don't believe citizens have basic Constitutional rights that have been the hallmark of our legal system for centuries. You don't believe in the presumption of innocence. You don't believe in the Bill of Rights. You seem to think that allowing a defendant a lawyer to make their case is some sort of injustice. And you believe in allowing the police to torture the shit out of citizens if they think they might be guilty of something, and imagine that we all would too.

 

Steve, there's no other way around this: you have fascist beliefs. Those are fascist beliefs. And that's not hyperbole. You have fascist beliefs.

 

And as Vapor pointed out, the idea that an innocent person can't incriminate himself ...are you 12? Do you ever leave that bar of yours? What an idiotic thing to imagine. And I can only use the word "imagine" because "think" or "believe" would be giving you too much credit.

 

Also funny how you argue almost daily that government can't do anything right and is full of incompetence and graft, and yet you can't imagine the government employees we call the police or the FBI could ever do anything wrong. Yes, they always know who is guilty. Why bother with lawyers or evidence or a trial when you can just torture the people you know to be guilty already.

 

And according to you, this is all erring on the side of public safety. Oh, man.

 

This is perhaps the most detestable and unsupportable thing you've ever written.

 

 

Heck, what can I say.

 

 

You'd actually rather see children raped and killed (among any number of violent crimes) thanks to legal procedure.

 

I don't know which is worse the fact you prefer that or the idea or that you espouse it to suck up to your liberal buttboys.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, brother. And I'm sure that type of argument works for you, too. Others might recognize it as what's called "a false choice."

 

You don't want to eat shit, so that means you want to starve to death.

 

You'd prefer a more fascist system, plain and simple. You don't believe in some of the most important principles this country stands for, and you're willing to throw out the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, decades of legal precedent, and centuries of Western legal tradition in favor of your childish, emotion-driven impulses. You're even complaining about things as basic as the idea that people have the right to an attorney in their defense. That's a basic principle of Western legal tradition. A very basic one. And yet, too much for you, it seems. The whole idea angers you.

 

What an idiot you are. Seriously. As if the only purpose of our legal system or our Constitution is to put bad people in jail as soon as possible.

 

Your beliefs are plainly and obviously unamerican. And you're a fascist who dreams not only of every day police "torturing the shit out of" suspects, but of "torturing the shit out of" suspects personally.

 

How am I supposed to take you seriously after this? Remember your definition of Christian? How if you didn't believe the fundamentals, you weren't a Christian? Clearly, by that standard, you are not an American.

 

Except that you are. Just a completely ignorant one.

 

And this is why we work hard to make sure people who think like you aren't in any position where you could do some real damage.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Gee Heck, you really are in angry asshole mode today.

Why aren't I surprised you don't know what facism is besides something you like to call people you don't like.

Yu know; like Socialism.

 

Anyway sorry if it pisses you off but I, for one, don't take the US constitution as the final arbiter of right and wrong.

You sound like some of the Christian zealots you despise.

 

Of course you can't seem to seperate the idea that it's a "living" document from the dogma.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The US Constitution is not supposed to be the final arbiter of right and wrong, so you can stop saying that now as if it means something to anyone who isn't Cal.

 

You simply don't agree with the some of the most basic principles of our country and our legal system and would prefer a system where basic civil/Constitutional rights are not given to American citizens, you hate the system where citizens are informed of those basic civil rights, you're for increased government control, and the state-sanctioned torture of criminal suspects.

 

Yes, you're talking about fascism, you fat, ignorant xxxx. Sing your Gordon Lightfoot and stay away from the controls, I beg you. Everyone should be angry with your bullshit, not just me. But this is where the nuts in your party are. You're a violent bunch of vigilante wannabes who hold up the Constitution as God-given and dear, but have no xxxxing clue what it actually says.

 

And then there's you, who holds it up for scorn because it's too full of civil rights for its citizens.

 

Holy mother of God.

[Westside Steve]

The US Constitution is not supposed to be the final arbiter of right and wrong, so you can stop saying that now as if it means something to anyone who isn't Cal.

 

You simply don't agree with the some of the most basic principles of our country and our legal system and would prefer a system where basic civil/Constitutional rights are not given to American citizens, you hate the system where citizens are informed of those basic civil rights, you're for increased government control, and the state-sanctioned torture of criminal suspects.

 

Yes, you're talking about fascism, you fat, ignorant xxxx. Sing your Gordon Lightfoot and stay away from the controls, I beg you. Everyone should be angry with your bullshit, not just me. But this is where the nuts in your party are. You're a violent bunch of vigilante wannabes who hold up the Constitution as God-given and dear, but have no xxxxing clue what it actually says.

 

And then there's you, who holds it up for scorn because it's too full of civil rights for its citizens.

 

Holy mother of God.

 

 

Whew.

So the guy who constantly brags about how he "understands this stuff" has devolved in his arguments to calling me fat.

Do you think you've hurt my feelings Heck?

Is that all you have left?

 

That's truly pathetic.

 

WSS

Two by Four

[Westside Steve]

And yet another shot at Gordon Lightfoot.

You must hate Indians.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Whew.

So the guy who constantly brags about how he "understands this stuff" has devolved in his arguments to calling me fat.

Do you think you've hurt my feelings Heck?

Is that all you have left?

 

That's truly pathetic.

 

WSS

Two by Four

 

Yes, all I did was just type the word "fat." That's all I ever do. You're so right. There was nothing else in that critique at all.

 

It's just one dishonest post after another.

 

But you're right. I shouldn't note that you're fat. It's not important, except to your health. But I should continue to note that you're ignorant of basic facts and that you're pining for the re-write of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make them more fascistic, which I did.

 

Honestly, and for my amusement, what do you have against the right to have an attorney? What's your problem with having someone accused of a crime be afforded an attorney? If you don't want them to represent their client to the best of their abilities, as is their sworn duty, what would you have them do instead?

 

When someone gets sued - say a doctor, which you seem to detest - should they get an attorney too? Is it still a horrible thing when their attorney tries to get them off?

 

And how can you claim that an innocent person can't incriminate themselves? Do you want to stop and think about that one for a second? What do you think the 5th amendment is for? You do realize that principle goes back a few hundred years, right?

[Westside Steve]

Yes, all I did was just type the word "fat." That's all I ever do. You're so right. There was nothing else in that critique at all.

 

It's just one dishonest post after another.

 

But you're right. I shouldn't note that you're fat. It's not important, except to your health. But I should continue to note that you're ignorant of basic facts and that you're pining for the re-write of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to make them more fascistic, which I did.

 

It's a living document isn't it???

 

Honestly, and for my amusement, what do you have against the right to have an attorney? What's your problem with having someone accused of a crime be afforded an attorney? If you don't want them to represent their client to the best of their abilities, as is their sworn duty, what would you have them do instead?

 

Dunno Heck. I never mentioned that.

 

When someone gets sued - say a doctor, which you seem to detest - should they get an attorney too? Is it still a horrible thing when their attorney tries to get them off?

 

Did they commit a crime?

 

And how can you claim that an innocent person can't incriminate themselves? Do you want to stop and think about that one for a second? What do you think the 5th amendment is for? You do realize that principle goes back a few hundred years, right?

 

 

So does the Bible.

 

 

 

Give me some examples of how an innocent man would incriminate himself by telling the truth.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

What idiotic responses. Honestly, I know these work in the bar, with other idiots, but try answering them again like a normal person would.

 

Hmm. Hundreds of years of legal tradition, dating back to the Magna Carta. ...I'll mention something else that's old - the Bible! Pow!

 

Dinosaurs. Cavemen. Helen Thomas.

 

And you did mention that. You mentioned today, just as you have before, how much it angers you that defense lawyer's job to "try and get them off whatever they did." Which isn't really what their job is, but whatever. This clearly upsets you. So what do you think their job should be?

 

Do you not believe in the idea that everyone is entitled to a sound, professional defense? Do you not believe that even the guilty have rights? Do you not believe that criminal procedure is important? These are some of the cornerstones of the system. They're sort of important.

 

And please, try thinking of some examples on your own. I'll give you one to start you off: putting yourself at the scene of a crime, even though you had nothing to do with it. But you really need to start doing some more thinking on your own. The fact that you can't even imagine these scenarios, and refuse to try, is part of your problem. You won't learn anything new. But I don't know how else to say it: you're just wrong here. You're just wrong.

 

Or here's another: Richard Jewell famously incriminated himself. And he could have been a terrorist! And there could have been more bombs he wasn't telling us about. I would imagine that you think they should have "tortured the shit out of him" too.

 

Because you have fascist sympathies.

[calfoxwc]

dammit, I really NEED an "UNTHANK" button.

 

In Heck's case, I need an "UNTHANK THIS OFFENSIVE PERSON'S STUPID AND OFFENSIVE POST".

 

so, tell us Heck,

 

when you say

 

"Yes, you're talking about fascism, you fat, ignorant xxxx."

 

you are engaging in "serious and intellectual conversation" you and you ilk have whined about

 

incessently in the past?

 

You're out of line, Heck. Did you ever man up and answer John's question to you, btw?

 

Now, you LIKE personal insults when you are getting your butt kicked by nearly all sides?

 

Your saving grace is that Vapor hasn't joined in the fray and kicked, too.

 

Where, oh where, are your bosom buddies Shep and MosquitoZits to worship you?

 

Surely you must miss them terribly.

 

Ole Vapor isn't one for worshipping, you keep attacking every opinion here, that makes you cry,

 

... it must suck to be you, HeckisHelenThomas

[Westside Steve]

 

 

Dinosaurs. Cavemen. Helen Thomas.

 

Hmmm Am I supposed to pick the one that doesn't fit?

 

And you did mention that. You mentioned today, just as you have before, how much it angers you that defense lawyer's job to "try and get them off whatever they did." Which isn't really what their job is, but whatever. This clearly upsets you. So what do you think their job should be?

 

Sigh. I know it's futile and you'll have your usual non response replete with childish insults but lets see.

The legal system SHOULD be about justtice.

If your client committed the crime that SHOULD be the focus.

His defense team might want to mitigate punishment but they SHOULD NOT try to get him off.

 

You and I know that is not the case.

 

Do you not believe in the idea that everyone is entitled to a sound, professional defense? Do you not believe that even the guilty have rights? Do you not believe that criminal procedure is important? These are some of the cornerstones of the system. They're sort of important.

 

But they are wrong.

They've been twisted into something we should all abhor.

 

And please, try thinking of some examples on your own. I'll give you one to start you off: putting yourself at the scene of a crime, even though you had nothing to do with it.

 

Uh OK. So what?

 

 

But you really need to start doing some more thinking on your own. The fact that you can't even imagine these scenarios, and refuse to try, is part of your problem. You won't learn anything new. But I don't know how else to say it: you're just wrong here. You're just wrong.

 

Why should I provide examples??

I asked YOU how an innocent person can incriminate himself by telling the truth.

 

I say you can't.

You say you can.

 

Or here's another: Richard Jewell famously incriminated himself. And he could have been a terrorist! And there could have been more bombs he wasn't telling us about. I would imagine that you think they should have "tortured the shit out of him" too.

 

How did Jewell incriminate himself?

He committed no crime did he?

How would refusing to tell the truth have helped him?

(remember, no one is even suggesting that anyone answer any way but truthfully)

 

Or back to the Rodriguez case.

Your wife is missing.

She might still be alive.

He's a convicted and realeased violent sex offender.

Her blood is in his car.

He won't talk.

 

Lets set aside legal dogma and pretend there is good and evil in the world.

At least right and wrong.

 

 

 

Because you have fascist sympathies.

 

 

Obama's a Nazi!!!!

 

How's that?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Never mind, Steve.

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

"Please stopping kicking my butt on this forum, Steve."

[Westside Steve]

Heck translation:

 

"Please stopping kicking my butt on this forum, Steve."

 

 

Well that's pretty close.

I'd say the translation is more like:

 

"Yes, everything you say is spot on.

I really wish I could convince the others you're some kind of evil bastard but even I agree in secrecy.

No normal human would think otherwise.

I haven't the wit to respond with anything but hyperbole and petty insults so I'm angry.

 

I can't and won't respond to anything you've said."

 

Oh well.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, that's completely it.

 

Or it could be that I can't believe I've wasted so much of my life discussing politics and government with someone who doesn't really know much about politics or government, and imagines that his extremely simple quips are actually dispositive evidence in his argument's favor.

 

Yes, you actually think you win these. And Cal does, too, which should tell you something. Like I said, I'm sure this works in the bar, and with idiots.

 

For instance, you can claim that environmentalists are responsible for the spill. Then I can claim that they're not, and that BP drills there because that's where most of the remaining Gulf oil is - offshore. No environmental group made them go out there. They wanted to go out there. Because that's where the oil is.

 

Then you can claim people don't like to see oil wells from their beaches. And not get why that's not an argument for your point, but a point about something else.

 

Then you imagine that you won that round because you just said, "People don't like to see oil wells from the beaches." This is why I don't think much of your intellect.

 

I suppose I could give you a graph of Gulf oil deposits, showing how much of what's left is offshore and in deep water. I suppose I could challenge you to tell me what environmentalist-backed law made BP drill the Horizon well. And if you wanted to make that argument you're making, you'd have to back it up with facts like that.

 

But what's the point? You can't have those discussions.

 

And it never matters that you're just wrong. Like when you imagine that it's the defense lawyers job to decide his/her client's guilt or innocence. You don't get how absolutely, fundamentally wrong that is. That's not how our system works, nor should it. Because it could never work that way.

 

You think I can't answer that point? Honestly? I'm stumped by your arguments?

 

80% of the time, they're not even arguments. They're just dumb opinions you have because you don't know much about anything.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But if imagining I think you're actually right about torturing suspects in police custody, or that the Bill of Rights is super-flawed, or that environmentalists are really what forced BP to drill into an oil deposit that would make them tens of billions of dollars, or any of the other zillion idiotic things you've said over the years, and I just can't face how much you've stumped me, is actually going to put an end to this, go right ahead and imagine that. Also because it's pretty funny, and believe me, I have a big smile on my face as I shake my head. It's stunned amusement, daily.

[Westside Steve]

You think I can't answer that point? Honestly?

 

 

Let's wait until you give me a straight answer on ony of it.

 

Until then we'll assume that's the case.

 

WSS

[We need Tom Tupa]

Wow. This took an unexpected turn. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Miranda out there - every prosecutor has a story about losing evidence due to all of the legal protection given to suspects. I dont have much problem with the decision that started this thread. It just moves the right to remain silent into alignment with the right to an attorney. The less technical of the rebuttals - that it is crazy to make someone talk to invoke their right to silence - seems silly.

 

But torture, Steve? Really? That's a pretty big leap. Should we have any laws against it? Why even limit it to police? Why not let me torture my neighbor if I'm convinced that he knows something important enough to torture him for? Who would decide when torture is okay? Could I decide for myself, or would you subject me to the liberal Obama-appointed judges to decide right from wrong for me? I'm sincerely interested in your answers. You must want to put some limit on it, right?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Okay, Steve. What useless misdirect would you like me to answer this time?

 

Honestly, how can you pretend to make this case after I've been dealing with you almost exclusively for years? It's like Marvin Harrison complaining to Peyton that he doesn't get enough balls thrown his way.

[Westside Steve]

Wow. This took an unexpected turn. There are certainly legitimate criticisms of Miranda out there - every prosecutor has a story about losing evidence due to all of the legal protection given to suspects. I dont have much problem with the decision that started this thread. It just moves the right to remain silent into alignment with the right to an attorney. The less technical of the rebuttals - that it is crazy to make someone talk to invoke their right to silence - seems silly.

 

But torture, Steve? Really? That's a pretty big leap. Should we have any laws against it? Why even limit it to police? Why not let me torture my neighbor if I'm convinced that he knows something important enough to torture him for? Who would decide when torture is okay? Could I decide for myself, or would you subject me to the liberal Obama-appointed judges to decide right from wrong for me? I'm sincerely interested in your answers. You must want to put some limit on it, right?

 

 

Tom.

If you go back I was talking about the Rodriguez case and what one of us would condone in the same situation.

No, Tom, I don't think torture should be a legal part of the system, Heck's kinda making up a straw man there.

(so was claiming I was against giving someone an attorney, I just never said that)

OTOH I don't think that a suspect in that situation should have a right to stay quiet.

 

I think he should answer truthfully.

 

 

And I don't think criminals should be freed because of technicalities.

You may consider punishment for those who may have cut corners but not let the violent criminal free.

I don't see why that's an outrage.

Do you?

 

WSS