Berghuis v. Thompkins

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide how far police officers can go in non-coercively persuading suspects to cooperate once they say they understand their Miranda rights but don't immediately invoke them.

When arrested for murder, Van Chester Thompkins did not ask for a lawyer or say he didn't want to talk to police after being read his Miranda rights. He confessed and was convicted. On appeal, however, he said his Miranda rights were violated.

In January 2005, Thompkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court denied Thompkins' petition.

Last November, a three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal tossed out his conviction, ruling that since Thompkins did not waive or assert his Miranda rights, the questioning should have stopped.

In asking the Supreme Court to review the case, Michigan prosecutors argue that the decision will limit police questioning of suspects.

On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the dispute. Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled for some time early next year.

Question presented: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.