« Shatzer — UPDATE!! | Main | Keep Your Hand Out Of The Cookie Jar »
More Miranda Than Ya Can Handa
By Tony Snyder | April 15, 2010
Miranda rights seem to be the topic du jour for the Supreme Court this year. As you know, the Court recently decided how long after the release of a suspect the police must wait before re-questioning said subject without the previously requested lawyer present.
Now the Supremes have ruled that the wording of Miranda rights, as given in Florida, are sufficient—even if it’s not expressly stated to the suspect they have a right to an attorney before police interrogation. The Court ruled 7-2 on this decision. All four of the “conservative wing” of the Court joined with ultra-liberal Sotomayor to sign über-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s decision.
“Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel’s presence would be restricted after the questioning commence. Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward and though the interrogation,” Ginsburg wrote.
This facts behind this case involved a Florida man, Kevin Dwayne Powell, and his confession that he bought an illegal gun “off the street” for $150, for his protection. Prior to making this statement, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the words, “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”
The other case worth noting is Berghuis v. Thompkins, which again deals with Miranda. Specifically, this case addresses understanding the right to remain silent, but not expressly invoking those rights.
The facts of this case are as such: Mr. Thompkins was told he had the right to remain silent, and silent he remained—for the most part. At no time during the three hours of interrogation did Mr. Thompkins ever say “I don’t want to be questioned”. Because he said nothing to them at all, the police continued to interrogate him. However, Mr. Thompkins was not always silent. There were time, the police noted, that he occasionally answered “yes,” “no,” ”I don’t know” or would give non-verbal answers by nodding his head and making eye contact as his response.
After two and half hours, however, Mr. Thompkins answered three questions, all in the affirmative. 1) Do you believe in God? 2) Do you pray to God? 3) Have you asked God for forgiveness for shooting the boy? (Emphasis added by scribner).
This answer is what got Mr. Thompkins convicted for the murder. The issue becomes, was answering these three questions, without previously stating “I don’t want to be questioned,” sufficient to allow the police to interrogate him and waive his right to remain silent?
One could logically argue that once the suspect answers the first question, that would be sufficient enough to use any other answers, provided the suspect fails to utter those magic words, “I don’t want to be questioned.” Once that phrase is used, the police should immediate refrain from any further questioning. The police can’t guess that a suspect refuses to remain silent and the Supreme Court would be placing the burden upon the police to make that deduction if they rule in favor of Thompkins. The only person who truly knows if he wishes to remain silent is the suspect himself. There are many reasons why suspects are willing to forego their Miranda right, be it a reduced prison sentence, reduce criminal charge, or a myriad other personal motivations. This attorney has seen it a dozen times. The best decision the Court can make on this would be to deem the Miranda right waived and that the police logically relied upon the responses given from Thompkins as an affirmation of waiving his right.
Topics: Law News & Comments | No Comments »