There was a shooting on January 10, 2000 in which a person died. This happened in Southfield, Michigan. Mr. Van Chester Thompkins here, was a suspect in this crime, and after police officers advised him of his rights in compliance with the Miranda Warning, they decided to interrogate him. The Miranda Warning is required to be given by the police in the States to people in police custody before they are interrogated, so they are informed about their constitutional rights. I'm sure most of you know it from the TV. It's the typical: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in court. You have the right to an attorney; if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court. Do you understand these rights as they've been told to you?"
Getting back to the case, the now interrogated Mr. Thompkins never stated he was going to rely on his right to remain silent, nor that he wasn't going to talk to the police, nor that he wanted an attorney. He was just quiet during the interrogation. In shock maybe, but let’s not get diverted from the point.
After he was completely silent during the 3 hour interrogation and a few irrelevant comments to the case, the detectives modified their tactic, and tried the religious questioning. They asked him in sequence - did he believe in God, did he pray to God, and did he pray to God to forgive him for shooting the victim. Mr. Thompkins answered "yes" to each of the statements, thus practically confessing of his crime.
So, what's wrong with this case? You might ask. A person who was a suspect in a shooting confessed he did it, so how did this end up in the Supreme Court? What happened next is what made it end up there.
In court, Mr. Thompkins made a motion to suppress his statements, claiming, in aid of his council, that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that he never waived his right, and that his statements were involuntary. His motion got denied, and the jury found Mr. Thompkins guilty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The defense, then appealed his conviction on grounds that included suppression of admission (that he had invoked and not waved his right to remain silent) and deficient representation related to improper jury instructions, but the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected his Miranda claim. Mr. Thompkins didn’t give up; he filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal District Court but it failed as well, but there was still some hope for him; at least back then. The US court of appeals for the sixth circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, claiming that the state court’s decision was unreasonable in finding an implied waver of Thompkin’s right to remain silent.
This was the point where the case basically stopped being about Thompkins, and became more of waiving a right by remaining silent. (Not that the point of my article is Mr. Thompkins either, but it is about the court´s decision.) My statement is sustained in the state´s petition to the Supreme Court I’ll quote:
"Although the right of silence, in contrast to the right to counsel, can be exercised passively (by not speaking), a suspect’s initial reticence does not inherently convey to a reasonable police officer that the suspect wishes to exercise a right to silence and terminate the interview. A suspect may want to listen to a recitation of the evidence against him or learn about the benefits of cooperation before deciding whether to exercise his rights. Or a suspect may be formulating an explanation of events that lessens his culpability, planning an alibi, or thinking through his options. Or he may be willing to talk about some topics but not others. [1]
After a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s decision, thus convicting the accused to his original sentence.
The Court had several reasons for their ruling on Thompkins' various arguments.
They considered whether the accused had taken action that waived those rights. Waiver must be a free choice with full awareness, and It was noted that the accused had read and expressed understanding of the rights, and had them read aloud, he had not pleaded lack of understanding, was given time, and therefore knew his rights. Specifically, having read the 5th warning ("you have the right to decide at any time before or during questioning to use your right to remain silent and your right to talk with a lawyer while you are being questioned") he was aware this right was enduring and could be applied at any time in the questioning if he chose, and the police would have to honor the invocation if he did so. [2] The accused, understanding his rights and that they were capable of invocation at any point, had not chosen to invoke them.
The court then concluded the following (And I will quote it exactly as they expressed it):
"In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police. Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police."[3]
This conclusion is the most important part of the whole case. If you don´t realize why yet, read again the first quoted sentence:
“In sum, a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.”
How in the world does one needs to say their rights aloud for the law to acknowledge them? Just imagine the following scenario:
In a normal day some 5 years from now, you get your wallet stolen, and fortunately the police catches the thief almost immediately. You are happy because you had $1000 dollars inside. I am going to get all back before anyone else spends my money, this is my lucky day! Well, think again, because jurisprudence may not be in your favor this time. You go to the station to get your stuff back, but you find out you´re going to have to go to court to resolve this dispute. You wonder why this is, but you feel confident, because you think the case is so simple, the dispute will be settled in no time. And you´re right, you get your day in court the following morning. You think it´s so simple you decide you don´t even need a lawyer to advice you or anything. When you get there, the formalities are made, and everything that usually happens, and then you explain what happened to the court. The judge agrees with your anger and everything that happened to you, and then says: “This is a very simple thing; it will be resolved right now”. You are happy because you don´t ever have to remember this incident again, and you can get back to your life. You lost enough time already. “Did you at any time invoke your right to private property?” the judge asks. “What? No, why would I?” You answer, and you see the face of the criminal´s attorney brighten up. “He waived his right by not invoking it when he got mugged.” The judge makes an approving head gesture. “He´s right, if you didn´t invoke your right before him, you waived it. It´s called jurisprudence.” He tells you. “What? So you´re saying I have no rights if I´m silent and never invoke them? What’s the origin of this legal disaster?” You ask not believing what you hear. “Berghuis v. Thompkins, 2010.”
Of course this little story I made up may seem a little far-fetched right now, but after the Supreme Court rules something, it´s basically a legal truth. Every judge must follow the decision, and jurisprudence may generate from it. And after this ruling, trust me, many people will likely take advantage from it.
On the other hand, referring only to the Miranda right in particular. What happens if you get interrogated by bad persons, and even if you claim you did invoke your right, they say you did not, and thus your Miranda right is automatically waived. It´s your word against them, and most of the time, regardless of the person, their word is the one that´s important. This could be seriously abused as well.
Finally I´m going to include some responses to this case.
Emily Berman, counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law commented that
"Berghuis' potential consequences are as predictable as night following day: Police will interrogate criminal suspects who do not explicitly invoke their rights – often, those will be suspects who are unsophisticated, poorly educated or mentally ill – for hours on end. This will lead, just as inevitably, to more coerced – and therefore unreliable – confessions... the very phenomenon that Miranda aimed to eliminate."
Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg stated that
"this decision authorizes lower courts to construe ambiguous situations in favor of police and prosecutors".
University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman concluded,
"this decision means that police can keep shooting questions at a suspect who refuses to talk as long as they want in hopes that the person will crack and give them some information... It's a little bit less restraint that the officers have to [currently] show."
Philadelphia Inquirer asked
"since when do Americans have to declare their constitutional rights out loud in order to claim them?" and that the decision had "set off... shock waves among rights activists". It commented that "the fact that DNA exonerations often upend criminal confessions that turn out to have been coerced after lengthy interrogations demonstrates the risks of such police procedures. That's a key reason Miranda rights were established in the first place". The ruling made automatic videotaping of major-crime interviews "critical". It concluded that "it may seem to some that the high court ruling will enable police to nab more bad guys and make the charges stick. But by setting up a 'gotcha' set of rules about a key constitutional protection, the high court has eroded individual liberty for all Americans." [4]
How much more of your rights are you going to let slip away?
