Supreme Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent (5-4)

[usregimechange]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke Miranda protections during criminal interrogations, a decision one dissenting justice said turns defendants' rights "upside down."

A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said in a 5-4 decision that suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.

The ruling comes in a case where a suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a Jan. 10, 2000, murder in Southfield, Mich. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the decision for the court's conservatives, said that wasn't enough.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_MIRANDA_RIGHTS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Held:
1. The state court’s decision rejecting Thompkins’ Miranda claim was correct under de novo review and therefore necessarily reason-able under AEDPA’s more deferential standard of review.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined.

"Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak. At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so. Those results, in my view, find no basis in Miranda or our subsequent cases and are inconsistent with the fair-trial principles on which those precedents are grounded. Today’s broad new rules are all the more unfortunate because they are unnecessary to the disposition of the case before us. I respectfully dissent." Justice Sotomayor, dissenting

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

[usregimechange]

1. More "conservative" judicial activism

[AndyA]

2. Here we go! Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito. Figures.

Rights? What are rights? American's don't have no stinkin' rights! :puke:

[msanthrope]

7. Don't forget Kennedy in the male Catholic authoritarian parade.....

without him, this couldn't have happened....

[Botany]

3. Let me guess who the 5 votes were

Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Alito.

BTW you can thank 3 of them for the ecological nightmare in the Gulf.

We need some of that 5 to die or retire from the court.

[usregimechange]

20. I don't want any of them to die, retire would be nice and ASAP

[Mari333]

4. privatized prison CEOs are popping champagne corks

lotta money to be made by incarcerating the populace

[Bolo Boffin]

5. The sound of silence. n/t

[spanone]

6. we will be living with the results of the bu$h*/cheney court for decades upon decades

shame on them

[Dr Morbius]

8. Anyone else get chills up their spine when they read this?

You now have to SAY you want to remain silent. This is almost a license for abusive interrogation.

[Deep13]

9. Honestly, that has effectively been the law for years.

In Davis v. United States, SCOTUS held that asserting the right to counsel must be unambiguous. Don't forget, the real purpose of Miranda is not so much to guarantee the right to counsel at questioning, but rather to prevent coerced confessions. There's no Constitutional basis to prevent suspects from truthfully and voluntarily incriminating themselves. The reason for the Miranda warnings is so suspects know what rights they have so they may assert them if they choose to do so. But that right must be asserted. Having been advised, the suspect must state that he declines to talk to stop questioning or that he requires a lawyer before proceeding.

Now it may seem like a no brainer--who would choose to talk to the cops if he could just tell them he won't talk or will only talk with a lawyer? Beats me why they do it. It seems that many of them think they can talk themselves out of being charged (which is better than a chance at an acquittal). Many think they are such convincing liars that the police will naturally believe them. Some honestly think they were justified in doing whatever. Whatever the case, suspects are not required either to shut up or to lawyer-up.

[usregimechange]

22. Didn't a waiver of rights use to reqire more than silence? I believe it did

[Deep13]

27. It still does.

Refusing to shut up despite a Miranda warning is a waiver of the right to remain silent, a right that may be reasserted any time. Of course, one has to assert a right before one can waive it. There's no presumption that one will refuse to talk, so it is necessary to tell the cops that you will not talk so they know to stop asking questions.

Another example: one has to assert a right to a jury trial by saying "not guilty" at the plea hearing. Once asserted, that right can later be waived by changing ones plea or by electing a bench trial.

[Shadow Creature]

10. Undue burden?

Its a weird idea that you will have to verbalize your affirmation of the right to remain silent.

[NoNothing]

13. You don't have to

This headline is misleading. You do not need to verbally invoke your right to remain silent. You can simply sit through the questioning and never say anything. You have that right. However, according to this ruling, you *do* need to verbally invoke your right to have questioning cease. In other words, if you don't say that you don't want to answer any questions, they can keep asking you questions. Then, if you decide to answer one, that can be used as evidence.

[Shadow Creature]

14. can I sleep

through the questioning? lol

[NoNothing]

15. You can certainly try

I can't imagine it would be easy! But you have the right to just be totally silent.

[jsamuel]

11. You must now speak to remain silent?

?

[usregimechange]

19. That's right

[Johonny]

25. He's either trapped in an imaginary box

or trying to tell us they are going to remain silent

[Deep13]

28. Case law does not allow "I will remain silent" to be used against a defendant.

How are the cops supposed to know that a suspect intends to stand silent--a signal that they must stop asking questions--if the defendant doesn't say so?

[uponit7771]

12. "...to stop an interrogation,..." I can understand the need for a suspect to be explicit to make the

...officers go away during an interrogation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. If he didn't want to say anything why didn't he just not say anything?

If they beat him into confessing that would be one thing but the guy was giving answers after they Mirandized him.

[TexasObserver]

17. Worst Supreme Court majority in its history, these five.

This group of five is systematically tearing up major parts of America's political and judicial system.

[depakid]

26. Right up there with the Taney and Lochner Era courts, that's for sure

[ThomWV]

18. The"Roberts Court" is just getting started dismantling our civil rights, with decades to go

It has been predicted elsewhere and we see it with every session of the Court.

[laughingliberal]

24. +1 nt

[reggie the dog]

21. fuck you , i aint talking, get me a fucking lawer

that is all you have to say. dont answer questions, if they are asking questions they probably dont have enough evidence for a conviction anyways.

[jp11]

23. I'm going to learn this:

http://www.lifeprint.com/asl101/pages-signs/l/lawyer.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kz_HFBnE2s

Not that I'd ever do anything to get picked up.