SCOTUS - Right to Remain Silent

[gomer]

The US Supreme court ruled today, June 1st 2010, that a suspect must 'explicitly state that he wishes to remain silent to invoke his Miranda rights'. The suspect was read his Miranda rights but did not answer. After hours of questioning he incriminated himself. The court reversed a lower court ruling today and reinstated his conviction. By a split decision they decided that a 'persistent silence for nearly three hours' does not 'send clear and unequivocal message' to the officers that you wish to involve Miranda.

By ANNIE YOUDERIAN - Courthouse News Service
(CN) - A suspect must explicitly state that he wishes to remain silent to invoke his Miranda rights, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The justices voted 5-4 to reinstate the first-degree murder conviction of a man who admitted nearly three hours into his interrogation that he had prayed to God to forgive him for murder.
In making this "uncoerced statement to the police," the Van Chester Thompkins waived his Miranda rights, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Thompkins had been brought in for questioning in a 2001 shooting outside a Michigan mall that killed one man and injured another.
Thompkins was read his rights to remain silent and to consult an attorney.
About two hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, an officer asked Thompkins, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"
Thompkins answered "Yes" and looked away.
He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole.
On appeal, he argued that he had never waived his right to remain silent, and that his prayer admission was involuntary. He also challenged his trial attorney's failure to ask for a jury instruction limiting how the jurors could consider the outcome of an accomplice's trial.
He lost in the state courts, and a federal judge denied his habeas petition.
But the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati reversed, ruling for Thompkins on both claims. It found that Thompkins' "persistent silence for nearly three hours ... offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers: Thompkins did not wish to waive his rights."
The conservative Supreme Court majority disagreed, saying suspects must invoke their Miranda rights unambiguously.
"[A] suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police," Kennedy wrote. "Thompkins did not invoke his right to remain silent and stop the questioning. Understanding his rights in full, he waived his right to remain silent by making a voluntary statement to the police." ... ...

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/01/27707.htm


PDF of the case: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

 

[Payaso]

The ramifications of this are clear. Get busted and be prepared for even more legal hassles than before. This is just one decision by SCOTUS I have a problem with accepting.

What a nasty sounding acronym, SCOTUS.

 

[Stoner Chick]

People are grown adults. If they cannot simply say "I wish to remain silent and invoke my Miranda rights", then they deserve whatever happens.

The police can't coerce you into saying anything - if you just keep your mouth shut.

Also, I am glad this guy didn't get off.

There is a thin line between justice and injustice and this i believe is a just ruling. It protects all parties.

 

[resinryder]

If he was read his rights, said he understood them, them admitted to the crime that's his fault. Simply remaining silent without evoking your right to remain so is not going to stop the bombardment of questions and trickery. It should be the first thing out of your mouth.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

If he was read his rights, said he understood them, them admitted to the crime that's his fault. Simply remaining silent without evoking your right to remain so is not going to stop the bombardment of questions and trickery. It should be the first thing out of your mouth.

Unfortunately, this one case that it was based on will now create a huge precedent that every cop and DA in the country will try to twist to their own advantage in the interrogation room and the courtroom. The problem here is that you have the right to remain silent and unless there is a reasonable belief that you don't understand your rights (don't speak english or are retarded, for examples) then your rights are automatically invoked and understood. YOU can decide to waive those rights. Otherwise, what good is having a "right" if you have to specifically say "Im exercising my rights"?

SCOTUS is destroying the Bill of Rights right in front of your face by forcing you to acknowledge and speak that you are exercising your rights in order to actually exercise your right not to speak. Messed up stuff. It also gives cops (in conjunction with a previous ruling recently that stated that cops do NOT have to stop questioning when you invoke the 5th) the ability to question you until they see fit to stop. It's legalized harrassment and interrogation.

 

[meatsnack]

DITTO

DITTO

Thats kind of what I was thinking IGT.

 

[boroboro]

You have to speak up to retain your right to remain silent?

.... I stared at that question for close to a minute, thinking of what I could possibly say next. Nothing.

 

[boroboro]

this started out as a double post, but instead I would like to invoke my right not to post anything else in this thread, by posting something else.

 

[resinryder]

So personal responsibility to demand your right to remain silent and sit there keeping your mouth shut is out the window?
I constantly see post on these boards about knowing your rights and asserting them. Now you're saying if I just sit there and expect leo to "know" I assert my right to remain silent without me saying so that that right is simply assumed ?
If a person isn't smart enough to envoke their right to remain silent and keep their mouth shut, that is their fault. It is and has always been up to the person to assert their right to remain silent. Just sitting there with your mouth shut is not an assertion of enacting your rights. Until you state your desire to remain silent they can question you till the cows come home.
After being read your rights, you are asked if you understand your rights as they have been read to you? If you say yes you understand and do not assert your rights that is your fault.

 

[kmk420kali]

When they read Miranda to you, they should be required to ask you if you are willing to waive your Rights-- At least that would set everything straight from the beginning--

 

[ItsGrowTime]

So personal responsibility to demand your right to remain silent and sit there keeping your mouth shut is out the window?

Why do you have to demand a right? It's a right which means it can't be taken away without due process. Due process in this instance is a waiver of your right by speaking. If you speak, you waived your right to remain silent.

I constantly see post on these boards about knowing your rights and asserting them. Now you're saying if I just sit there and expect leo to "know" I assert my right to remain silent without me saying so that that right is simply assumed ?

The very act of remaining silent IS asserting your right! Part of the Miranda warning is "do you understand your rights?". You answer "yes" and that's it. Now SCOTUS is forcing you to say "Yes, and I will exercise my right to remain silent." The catch here is that when you speak at all that is where the cops will start to get into your shit even worse. I can already see it:

"I wish to remain silent"
"Oh yeah? Is that because you were caught growing marijuana?"
"No, it's my right"
"Only guilty people assert their rights. You must be guilty."
And way we go....you've already said way too much to the cops and weaker minds may try to defend their reasoning for remaining silent and fall right into the police trap. The court forcing you to speak more and more is NEVER a good thing for you!

If a person isn't smart enough to envoke their right to remain silent and keep their mouth shut, that is their fault. It is and has always been up to the person to assert their right to remain silent. Just sitting there with your mouth shut is not an assertion of enacting your rights. Until you state your desire to remain silent they can question you till the cows come home.

Don't you get that the act of remaining silent IS the right? SCOTUS is forcing people to waive their right in order to exercise it. This opens up a huge new legal shitball for cops and prosecutors to attack.

After being read your rights, you are asked if you understand your rights as they have been read to you? If you say yes you understand and do not assert your rights that is your fault.

Keep in mind that rights weren't written to benefit the smart people, rather to benefit everyone. The very act of remaining silent from start to finish. You gotta look at the bigger picture here. SCOTUS is actively working to make exercising your Constitutional rights so goddamn technical that a single slip-up by a suspect (such as not saying "IM EXERCISING MY 5th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND I WANT AN ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW") pretty much throws out any Constitutional defense. The police state is closing in around you and everyone else and you're talking about personal responsibility?

 

[ClosetAdvocate]

I understand the case pretty well. I agree with the majority decision of the court.

Unless: there is evidence to suggest that you cannot comprehend the miranda rights that were read to you; in which case you need them presented in a language or manner that you understand; you have verbally asserted that you will not answer any further questions without an attorney present, in which case a conviction can be thrown out if you "confess" after you've said that want your attorney present; the suspect is a minor, in which case the parent must be present (I believe) the police have to assume that you are waiving your right to remain silent.

Passive resistance is fine for sit-ins and marches but unsuitable once you've already been arrested for a crime. Nearly everyone breaks with enough stress, yelling, badgering, and trickery so you might as well cut to the chase and either confess or tell the officers that you are invoking your right to remain silent.

Everyone needs to practice saying it. "I'm not answering any further questions without an attorney present." Practice saying it and practice repeating it.

 

[kmk420kali]

Why do you have to demand a right? It's a right which means it can't be taken away without due process. Due process in this instance is a waiver of your right by speaking. If you speak, you waived your right to remain silent.



The very act of remaining silent IS asserting your right! Part of the Miranda warning is "do you understand your rights?". You answer "yes" and that's it. Now SCOTUS is forcing you to say "Yes, and I will exercise my right to remain silent." The catch here is that when you speak at all that is where the cops will start to get into your shit even worse. I can already see it:

"I wish to remain silent"
"Oh yeah? Is that because you were caught growing marijuana?"
"No, it's my right"
"Only guilty people assert their rights. You must be guilty."
And way we go....you've already said way too much to the cops and weaker minds may try to defend their reasoning for remaining silent and fall right into the police trap. The court forcing you to speak more and more is NEVER a good thing for you!



Don't you get that the act of remaining silent IS the right? SCOTUS is forcing people to waive their right in order to exercise it. This opens up a huge new legal shitball for cops and prosecutors to attack.



Keep in mind that rights weren't written to benefit the smart people, rather to benefit everyone. The very act of remaining silent from start to finish. You gotta look at the bigger picture here. SCOTUS is actively working to make exercising your Constitutional rights so goddamn technical that a single slip-up by a suspect (such as not saying "IM EXERCISING MY 5th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND I WANT AN ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW") pretty much throws out any Constitutional defense. The police state is closing in around you and everyone else and you're talking about personal responsibility?

Bro...you are correct...if you stay silent, you are actively asserting
your Right to remain silent...and it will never be an issue--
But the Case in point is about the guy not saying anything...then out of the blue confesses....so he obviously gave up his Right to remain silent...by speaking--
Saying, "I don't want to talk without an Attorney", will not get you convicted of anything--

 

[ClosetAdvocate]

. . . If you speak, you waived your right to remain silent. . .

I hear what you're saying, but it's simply not true.

There's a few things wrong with your assumptions (1) the police would be required to get every suspect an attorney before they questioned them which would drastically reduce the number of convictions (try not to just think about the innocent growers and smokers, rather think of the Ted Bundys and those that commit crimes that are deserving punishment) (2) I had a teacher that always said that "silence gives consent" which basically means that unless you say otherwise you're giving the police consent to interrogate you and (3) the act of speaking doesn't give up your right to remain silent.

Instead, the act of giving the police information which they are not entitled to (i.e. first and last name, a confession, or relevant details which can convict you) gives up your right to remain silent.

I'd be interested to hear from some people in the LE community (though hopefully not on this forum) or legal community regarding this case, but I think this is the general gist of it.

 

[ItsGrowTime]

Using my powers of reading into the future, I came across this news release.

Associated Propaganda Press June 15, 2011

Supreme Court rules defendant did not say the Magic Word; upholds conviction

Today, the US Supreme Court ruled that a defendant, John Q. Grower, failed to say the Magic Word when being questioned by police related to a marijuana cultivation arrest. Mr. Grower remained silent except for requesting a lawyer.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Mr. Grower failed to say "Please" and therefore waived his Constitutional rights and all police conduct after that failure was legal and appropriate. Police proceeded to interrogate Mr. Grower for 17 hours straight, in teams of 3, until he eventually stated that he was the person responsible for the growing operation. Mr. Grower argued that he had to urinate and confessed before soiling himself.

Previous Court rulings have held that defendants are required to state verbally that they wish to remain silent and that police are free to question suspects even after a suspect has invoked the 5th Amendment right. Today's ruling adds the new requirement that a suspect must say the Magic Word, commonly known as "Please" in order to retain Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Next week, the Court will be hearing arguments whether the 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure applies to a suspect's rectum. The Court is expected to rule that it does not.

 

[White-rhino]

Its a pretty insignificant ruling if you ask me. Had it gone either way, stupid asses would still talk. You don't talk, no matter what, no excuse. If thats too hard to understand, enjoy prison.

Or as Ron White says - I know I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability.

 

[resinryder]

Why do you have to demand a right? It's a right which means it can't be taken away without due process. Due process in this instance is a waiver of your right by speaking. If you speak, you waived your right to remain silent.



The very act of remaining silent IS asserting your right! Part of the Miranda warning is "do you understand your rights?". You answer "yes" and that's it. Now SCOTUS is forcing you to say "Yes, and I will exercise my right to remain silent." The catch here is that when you speak at all that is where the cops will start to get into your shit even worse. I can already see it:

"I wish to remain silent"
"Oh yeah? Is that because you were caught growing marijuana?"
"No, it's my right"
"Only guilty people assert their rights. You must be guilty."
And way we go....you've already said way too much to the cops and weaker minds may try to defend their reasoning for remaining silent and fall right into the police trap. The court forcing you to speak more and more is NEVER a good thing for you!



Don't you get that the act of remaining silent IS the right? SCOTUS is forcing people to waive their right in order to exercise it. This opens up a huge new legal shitball for cops and prosecutors to attack.



Keep in mind that rights weren't written to benefit the smart people, rather to benefit everyone. The very act of remaining silent from start to finish. You gotta look at the bigger picture here. SCOTUS is actively working to make exercising your Constitutional rights so goddamn technical that a single slip-up by a suspect (such as not saying "IM EXERCISING MY 5th AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND I WANT AN ATTORNEY RIGHT NOW") pretty much throws out any Constitutional defense. The police state is closing in around you and everyone else and you're talking about personal responsibility?

So by remaining silent the popo are to assume you are exercising your right to remain silent. Next you'll be telling me the popo are gonna assume by you sitting there that they are to run out and get an attorney for you too?
You don't get what you don't demand.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you're gonna do questionable shit, better know how to deal with questionable shit when that questionable shit hit the fan!

 

[ItsGrowTime]

So by remaining silent the popo are to assume you are exercising your right to remain silent. Next you'll be telling me the popo are gonna assume by you sitting there that they are to run out and get an attorney for you too?
You don't get what you don't demand.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you're gonna do questionable shit, better know how to deal with questionable shit when that questionable shit hit the fan!

Actually, until another recent SCOTUS ruling, cops were required to stop questioning a suspect after the suspect requested an attorney. SCOTUS recently threw that out too. So yes, if cops wanted to continue questioning then they had to run out and get you a lawyer asap. That is no longer the case either thanks to SCOTUS. Now you can be quiet, ask for a lawyer, and the cops can still interrogate you for as long as they want without consequence.

Let's face the fact that SCOTUS doesn't care what the Constitution says. They're all about giving more police powers to the state and this ruling is just another in the progression of neutering the Bill of Rights.

 

[resinryder]

Let's face the fact that SCOTUS doesn't care what the Constitution says. They're all about giving more police powers to the state and this ruling is just another in the progression of neutering the Bill of Rights.

I can agree with that 100%. But I would add that both primary parties are guilty of the same exact thing. And with our current President proclaiming that the Constitution is an outdated document, I'd venture to say we as a country are screwed

 

[CarpeLibertatem]

Actually they don't have to assume you are excercising your right by your silence, they KNOW you are exercising that right BECAUSE of your silence. There is silence and there is non-silence, which would be speaking. I see what everyone else is saying but the fact is that by forcing you to speak they're taking your right to silence.

Yeah, this ruling does not change anything about you giving up your right to testify against yourself, but it does force you to speak when EVERYONE KNOWS what you are doing by staying silent- exercising your right to. A technicality? Sure....but we don't need anymore of those.