View Single Post
Old 06-01-2010, 10:42 AM   #125
Medusa
Mentally Delicious

How Do You Identify?:
Queer High Femme, thank you very much
Preferred Pronoun?:
Mme.
Relationship Status:
Married to JD.
 
Medusa's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 10,446
Thanks: 5,995
Thanked 42,686 Times in 7,831 Posts
Rep Power: 10000025
Medusa has disabled reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UofMfan View Post
Supreme Court Miranda Ruling: Suspects Must Explicitly Tell Police They Want To Remain Silent

JESSE J. HOLLAND | 06/ 1/10 10:59 AM | AP

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.


Oh GAAAHHHHHH. I think this is terrible!!

Makes me wonder how they intend to handle people who are intoxicated or mentally ill or who lack socially conformed communication skills.
__________________
.
.
.
Medusa is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Medusa For This Useful Post: