Berghuis v. Thompkins
Justices will rule on expansion of Miranda rights (Sept. 30, 2009)
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.
Divided court rejects expansion of Miranda rights (June 1, 2010)
A divided Supreme Court decided a case today concerning 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 June 1, 2010, a divided Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
"Thompkins’ silence during the interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent," Justice Kennedy wrote, adding: "There is no principled reason to adopt different standards for determining when an accused has invoked the Miranda right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel .... Both protect the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by requiring an interrogation to cease when either right is invoked."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
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.