Home » Law and Legal Articles » Re-Writing Miranda: Eroding the Right to Remain Silent
Re-Writing Miranda: Eroding the Right to Remain Silent
Through heavy exposure in print and visual media, the vast majority of Americans are well aware of their "right to remain silent" upon arrest.
July 23, 2010 /Law and Legal PR News/ -- Through heavy exposure in print and visual media, the vast majority of Americans are well aware of their "right to remain silent" upon arrest. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist once wrote that Miranda warnings are so "embedded in routine police practice" that they have become "part of our national culture." So how will American culture adjust to the recent Supreme Court ruling which holds that in order to maintain "the right to remain silent," a suspect must affirmatively invoke it?
The Story of Van Chester Thompkins
Van Chester Thompkins was arrested, charged with murder and read his Miranda rights, which insisted that he had the right to remain silent. During the three hour interrogation that followed, Thompkins remained silent, save for noting that his chair was hard and refusing a peppermint. However, when interrogators persisted in their interrogation, despite Thompkins refusing to sign a statement indicating that he understood his right to remain silent, Thompkins eventually answered "yes" to the questions: "Do you believe in God?" "Do you pray to God?" and "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Prosecutors used these monosyllabic answers after Thompkins remained silent for hours, to convict him of murder. Thompkins then filed a suit alleging that his Miranda rights had been violated by the continued interrogation after he had invoked his right to remain silent by remaining silent.
The Supreme Court Ruling
Rather than upholding the tried and true interpretation of Miranda that honors one's "right to remain silent" by remaining silent, the Supreme Court ruled in Berghuis v. Thompkins that remaining silent or failing to cooperate with an interrogation will no longer suffice as an invocation of Miranda rights. Instead, a suspect may now only be assured that his or her Miranda rights will be respected by affirmatively stating that he or she wishes to invoke them. Given that the widespread cultural perception of Miranda is understood to be that invoking the right to remain silent may only be done by remaining silent, the Thompkins ruling could pose serious problems for suspects who do not closely follow the movements of the Court and are therefore unaware of the ruling.
Practical Effects of Thompkins
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the dissent in Thompkins joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens, wrote that the decision "turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent -- which, counter intuitively, requires them to speak. 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... find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded." The inconsistency of the Thompkins holding will undoubtedly be confusing and problematic for suspects who are unaware of it.
First, absent a clear and explicit invocation of one's Miranda rights will leave suspects vulnerable to theoretically endless interrogations. Though the original Miranda decision indicates that a lengthy interrogation should ordinarily be interpreted as coercive and thus forbidden, the Court gives no guidance in Thompkins as to how long an interrogation of a silent suspect who has not invoked Miranda may last before it is likely to be considered coercively long. In Thompkins, three hours was not considered long enough to be considered coercive, nor was the fact that the line of questioning that got Thompkins to speak after hours of silence was about his faith. Many uninformed suspects will now likely have to endure lengthy interrogations while confused as to why their silence has not lead to the ceasing of the questioning.
Second, Thompkins failed to insist that suspects be informed that in order to utilize their Miranda rights that they must explicitly invoke them. This failure will likely allow for the manipulation of suspects who believe that they must remain silent in order to avoid self-incrimination. Vulnerable populations such as non-English speakers, juveniles, the illiterate and the developmentally disabled will be particularly at risk of being manipulated by the new system. The right against self-incrimination is a right that Americans hold dear. It is deeply disturbing that the Supreme Court felt justified in eroding it in Thompkins.
For Further Reference
The Thompkins decision holds that one's right against self incrimination must be explicitly invoked. Thus, it is now more important than ever that Americans understand this right. If you have questions about Miranda warnings or your right against self-incrimination, please speak with an experienced criminal defense attorney.
Article provided by Suzuki Law Offices, L.L.C.
Visit us at www.suzukilawoffices.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
FURTHER RELATED RESOURCES:
|
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
|
|
|
|
|
| LAW AND LEGAL ARCHIVE SEARCH |
|
|
| |
| SUBMIT LAW AND LEGAL NEWS |
|
|
| |
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us