Berghuis v. Thompkins

Supreme Court of the United States
176 L. Ed. 2d 1098, 560 U.S. 370, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4379 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked their Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police.

Facts:

On January 10, 2000, a shooting in Southfield, Michigan resulted in the death of Samuel Morris.
Van Chester Thompkins was identified as a suspect but fled the state.
About a year later, Thompkins was arrested in Ohio.
Two Southfield police officers traveled to Ohio to interrogate Thompkins in an 8-by-10-foot room.
At the start of the nearly three-hour interrogation, officers presented Thompkins with a written form containing the Miranda warnings.
Thompkins read one of the warnings aloud but refused to sign the form acknowledging he understood his rights.
Thompkins was largely silent for the first 2 hours and 45 minutes of the interrogation, giving only a few brief verbal or non-verbal responses.
Near the end of the interrogation, Detective Helgert asked Thompkins if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting, to which Thompkins answered, 'Yes.'

Procedural Posture:

Thompkins was charged in Michigan state trial court with first-degree murder and other offenses.
Thompkins' motion to suppress his incriminating statements was denied by the trial court.
A jury convicted Thompkins on all counts, and he was sentenced to life in prison.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the conviction.
The Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied discretionary review.
Thompkins filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which was denied.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, finding Thompkins' rights had been violated.
The warden, Berghuis, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a suspect who has received and understood their Miranda rights, and has not expressly waived them, implicitly waive the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Kennedy

Yes. Where a suspect has been advised of and understands their Miranda rights, an uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent. A suspect must invoke the right to remain silent unambiguously; silence alone is not sufficient to invoke this right. The police are not required to obtain an express waiver before an interrogation can begin. Thompkins was read his rights, understood them, and engaged in a course of conduct—making a voluntary statement—that indicated a waiver. His answer to the detective's question was uncoerced and therefore admissible, as it was preceded by his understanding of his rights and followed by his decision to speak.

Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor

No. A suspect's silence for nearly three hours followed by a brief, one-word response is not sufficient to meet the prosecution's 'heavy burden' to show a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to remain silent. The majority's decision inverts the protections of Miranda, which presumes a defendant did not waive their rights. By establishing a rule that a suspect must speak to invoke their right to silence, the Court creates a counterintuitive requirement and weakens the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. The prolonged silence was strong evidence that Thompkins did not intend to waive his rights, and his eventual one-word answer is more consistent with the product of coercive interrogation than a voluntary waiver.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the requirements for both invoking and waiving the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. By requiring an unambiguous invocation, the Court places the onus on the suspect to clearly state their desire to remain silent, meaning that mere silence is insufficient. It also lowers the bar for prosecutors to prove waiver, establishing that a voluntary statement after understanding the Miranda warnings constitutes an implied waiver. The ruling provides law enforcement with clearer guidance but is criticized by dissenters as weakening the core protections of Miranda by creating a presumption of waiver from a suspect's speech.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"