THE NPSLETC Take on Miranda & Berghuis

From Don Usher NPSLETC Superintendent:
On June 1st, the Supreme Court decided the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins. 
The court answered an important question relating to the Miranda line of cases, holding that a suspect does not invoke his right to remain silent by simply maintaining his silence throughout the interrogation. In addition, if a suspect makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement at all regarding his rights, the police are not required to end the questioning or seek to clarify the suspect’s intent. 
In this case, Thompkins offered little or nothing in response to the reading of his rights and during most of a three hour interrogation. When he did respond, his responses were limited, and he did not request counsel or mention a desire to remain silent.  Questioning continued until Thompkins admitted that he had prayed to God to forgive him for shooting the victim.  He refused to make a written confession and the questioning ended soon thereafter. 
The trial court refused to suppress his statements from the interrogation, and he appealed.  The Sixth Circuit reversed that denial, holding that Thompkins’ persistent silence was a clear and unequivocal refusal to waive his rights.  The Supreme Court reversed, holding that like the invocation of counsel, an invocation of the right to remain silent must be clear and unequivocal. 
The Court also decided that Thompkins had waived his right to remain silent, noting that such a waiver can be inferred by the “…actions and words of the person interrogated.”  Here, Thompkins was aware of his rights, and his right to invoke them at any time during the interrogation, and being aware of those rights chose to voluntarily respond to questions whose answers were ultimately used against him at trial.
A full case report can be found at the link below.
More Information...