${site.data.firmName} ${site.data.firmName}
Free Consultation No recovery - No Fee
215-822-7575 / 800-358-9367
Practice Areas

What's Happening to the Right to Remain Silent?

In a recent Supreme Court of the United States decision, BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect needs to affirmatively invoke the Right to Remain Silent, narrowing the scope of MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, the landmark case which interpreted the US Constitution to give us the right to remain silent in 1966.  Now you must tell the police "I want to remain silent".

The defendant, Thompkins, when being interrogated by the police on suspicion of murder never told the police that he wanted to remain silent, and that he did not want to talk with the police or that he wanted an attorney during his 3 hour interrogation.  Near the end, he answered"yes" when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting of the victim.

The Court held that Thompkins' silence during the questioning did not invoke his Miranda rights "unambiguously", and that his one word answer implied that he waived his right to remain silent.

The Court held: "In sum, 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.  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.  The police, moreover, were not required to obtain a waiver of Thompkin's right to remain silent before interrogating him."

As a result of this ruling, a suspect must say, "I don't want to talk", or "I want to remain silent" or "I want an attorney".  I wonder what the police thought during the 3 hours of the questioning when Thompkins refused to answer any of their questions - that he wasn't asserting his right to remain silent?  I don't think this is the end of the erosion of Miranda.





No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
Best Lawyers | Best Law Firms | US News 2018
  • RGS&G Firm News

    Attorney Amy R. Stern, a partner at the Lansdale law firm of Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg and Gifford, P.C, is co-presenting a seminar entitled Divorce 101 along with Marc Silverman, Senior Loan Officer of GMH Mortgage Services.Read more...

  • Super Lawyers | Rising Stars
  • National board of legal speciality certification
  • American college of trial lawyers
  • National board of trial advocacy | EST 1977
  • 2013 | Subarbanlife | Awesome Attorneys
  • PennSuburban | Chamber of commerce

Rubin, Glickman, Steinberg and Gifford has been a member of the local Penn Suburban Chamber of Commerce (previously known as North Penn Suburban Chamber of Commerce) for more than 25 years.

You Have Questions? We Have Answers. Fill out the form and an attorney will be in touch with you shortly.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

start now. send your request