SCOTUS weakened human rights in this country yesterday.
The Supreme Court retreated from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda decision on Tuesday, ruling that a crime suspect’s words can be used against him if he fails to clearly invoke his rights and instead, answers a single question after nearly three hours of interrogation.
In the past, the court has said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect has "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights.
But in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court said the suspect has the duty to invoke his rights. If he fails to do so, his later words can be used to convict him, the justices said.
The police are "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect’s "right to remain silent before interrogating him," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
In this case, Michigan police had warned the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or to speak to a lawyer.
However, he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes. At that point, the officer asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"
"Yes," Thompson said, and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or to speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins’ conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the conviction. "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 said. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the rulings "marks a substantial retreat from the protections against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. Arizona has long provided." She said the conviction should be overturned because the prosecution had not "carried its burden to show that he waived his right to remain silent."
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined her dissent…
Inserted from <LA Times>
Now it may appear that no harm was done in this case, since it seems evident that the guy is guilty, but our rights do not revolve around the guilt or innocence of one individual. The Fifth Amendment guarantees us the right against self incrimination. In this case, the police informed the defendant, who said he understood. According to stare decisis, the next step was for police to ask the defendant if he wished to waive those rights. If they did, he did not assent, so they interrogated him for almost three hours.
Anyone with half a brain, would assert their right to silence. So that shows that Thompkins is not particularly bright. Intellectually challenged individuals are those most vulnerable to coercive tactics and most in need of full Miranda protection. We can be sure that innocent people will now be convicted, because they are too stupid to assert their right to silence and, unable to withstand hours of professional interrogation, will give false confessions.
In their Senate confirmation hearings, both Alito and Roberts promised to respect stare decisis. They lied, and have trampled it again.
9 Responses to “Extreme Court Chips at Miranda Rights”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I hear the Producers of Law and order are pissed because they have to go back every episode and change things. 😉 And now reality….One has to wonder what their finale model of justice looks like. Poor bastards who don’t know enough to ask for a lawyer right away or whom trust the “Good” guys are going to be screwed. We thought prisons were crowed now,wait………
Tim, I share your concern. In my volunteer work, most of the guys openly admit their guilt. Few profess innocence, but there are several among them who have convinced me that they actually are innocent. Many are over-convicted.
The biggest injustice here is that every time a weakling is cowed into a false confession, the guilty go free.
In a Supreme Court full of stupid decisions, this has to be one of the dumbest. A suspect who wants to remain silent has to announce that he/she wants to remain silent? WTF is the point?
The point is that the GOP wants a police state populated by obedient sheep.
So when reading someone their rights, do police have to supply suspects with a form to fill out saying they either choose to exercise their right or not?
While I understand the logic, the reason why the Miranda Rights were initiated to prevent self incrimination. I am sure this reversal from the courts is going to increase the burden on the legal system, with many innocent people being found guilty…
Analysis of Sotomayor’s strongly dissent (with which I concur) from SCOTUSBlog:
Source:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/analysis-tilting-miranda-toward-the-police/#more-21004
Full and detailed SCOTUS history of Berghuis v Thompkins can be found at SCOTUS Wiki:
http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Berghuis_v._Thompkins
Thanks for the input, Nameless. She’s right on target.
I too think this is an outrageous decision. And in this case, I think the cops were deliberately setting the guy up. The justices need to remember that people are innocent until proven guilty and that most suspects don’t have a PhD or a law degree. Most are undereducated, just plain stupid or mentally challenged. There are exceptions.
Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, can Congress pass a law overturning it? Not that that’s going to happen with those red people in Congress right now.
Leslie, the only way I see to undo this is to keep Republicans out of power so long that Democratic appointments restore balance to the court. It will take many years.