Dickey & Campbell Law Firm : Blog

Most Americans, even if unfamiliar with the case that sparked the ruling, have watched enough Law & Order to recognize one of the most well-known tenets in American legal jurisprudence.  You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.  You have the right to an attorney.  If you can’t afford an attorney, one will be appointed to represent you.  The concept, as first articulated in Miranda v. Arizona, seems simple enough, right?  I keep my mouth shut unless I want whatever I say coming back to bite me.  A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, however, turns that common sense understanding right on its head.

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court considered the case of Van Chester Thompkins, who was convicted of first degree murder after a mall-shooting in Michigan left one dead and others injured.  A year after the incident, Thompkins was arrested and interrogated by officers.  The interrogation took place in a small room and lasted for three hours.  At the start of the interrogation, officers read Thompkins his Miranda rights, cited above.  Thompkins was mostly silent during the interrogation, responding only by occasionally saying “Yes”, “No” or “I don’t know.”  After 2 hours and 45 minutes of interrogation, the following exchange took place.

Detective: Do you believe in God?

Thompkins: Yes

Detective: Do you pray to God?

Thompkins: Yes

Detective: Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?

Thompkins: Yes                  

The interrogation ended shortly after this exchange.  The Supreme Court thought it significant that Thompkins did not, at any point, state that he wished to remain silent, that he did not want to talk to police or that he wanted to speak with an attorney. 

This exchange was admitted into evidence during Thompkins’ trial.  The Supreme Court, in considering whether the exchange should have been kept out by the trial court, concluded that Thompkins had not invoked his right to remain silent.  The Court held that, like the right to counsel, the right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously.  In other words, Thompkins was required to explicitly state that he wished to remain silent in order to invoke that right.  The Court further held that Thompkins waived his right to remain silent when he responded to the officer’s questions and, therefore, the exchange was properly admitted. 

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor characterized the ruling as “counterintuitive” and one which “construes ambiguity in favor of the police.”  While the wisdom of the ruling ultimately remains to be seen, it seems likely that prosecutors will be able introduce statements made by individuals who mistakenly believe they have invoked their right to remain silent by doing just that – remaining silent.