Miranda Rights: Directly Assert Them!

Miranda Rights: Directly Assert Them!

By:


You must now clearly assert your right to remain silent in Florida if the police read you the Miranda Rights. A recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Berghuis v. Thompkins, upheld the murder conviction of a defendant who did not verbally assert his right to remain silent to law enforcement. The ruling was 4-5 and the high court found that a suspect must explicitly state to police officers that he is asserting his Miranda Rights.

Miranda rights are constitutional rights, and commonly known as the right to remain silent and the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions. They come into play when a criminal suspect is taken under arrest. The issue in this case was whether the defendant waived his Miranda rights when he did not explicitly assert them to the police.

The Supreme Court concluded he did. In this case, a shooting occurred near a mall in Southfield, Michigan and a young man was murdered. The murder suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, fled the scene of the crime but was later arrested in Ohio. Once Thompkins was arrested, law enforcement conducted an interrogation that lasted for several hours. They forced Thompkins to read aloud from the original Miranda Supreme Court opinion from 1966, where there was a copy of constitutional rights. These constitutional rights included the notice that anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, and the right to decide at any time before or during questioning to use your right to remain silent. Thompkins was completely quiet throughout the majority of the interrogation. The defendant would not execute the constitutional rights form and it was unclear whether the defendant understood the terms of the form or if he confirmed he understood them. Thompkins later implicated himself in the mall shooting. He was asked whether he believed in God, and he answered in the affirmative. Referring to the mall shooting victim, the officers continued, Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down Thompkins answered Yes. He refused to sign a written confession but was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder, among other crimes. Justice Anthony

Kennedy was responsible for drafting the majority opinion and he concluded that had Thompkins stated he wanted to remain silent or he did not want to speak to the police, he would have invoked his right to stop the officers questioning. As a result of Thompkins' failure to make explicit statements, Thompkins failed to invoke this constitutional right to remain silent. Joining the majority opinion were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The dissent was written by Jusice Sonia Sotomayor and she indicated she was of the opinion that the decision was a huge retreat from consitutional protections against self-incrimination. By requiring criminal suspects to affirmatively speak, the Thompkins ruling turns Miranda upside down. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported Sotomayor's dissent.

About the Author:
Ryan Rooth is a St. Petersburg Florida criminal defense lawyer who can assist you with your legal needs. If you or a loved one has been arrested or has questions about criminal law, claim your FREE e-book providing help on your Florida criminal case, available at =>http://www.roothlawgroup.com



Article Originally Published On: http://www.articlesnatch.com


Tags: , , , , , , ,

|

Loading...
Related....
Videos...

Recent Legal Articles

Comments

Still can't find what you are looking for? Search for it!

Loading

Site Navigation:

Copyright 2005-2011 ArticleSnatch, LLC - All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service.