taxwhat
Regular Member
imported post
▼ To the point
A 5-4 decision on a Michigan case chips away at the right of innocent Americans not to talk after being arrested.
High court ruling erodes Miranda
“You have the right to remain silent.” But the U.S.
Supreme Court now says you may have to speak up to claim that right during police questioning after arrest.
This is the ironic effect of a 5-4 ruling of the court on Tuesday. As a result, Van Chester Thompkins, 33, will continue to serve a life sentence for the January, 2000, murder of Samuel Morris, who was killed in a drive-by shooting outside a mall in Southfield.
The new ruling essentially chips away at Americans’ Miranda rights. And that’s disturbing if you understand that those rights, as set down in a landmark 1966 ruling, were designed to protect all citizens — including the innocent.
Police advised Mr. Thompkins of his right to remain silent when they arrested him for the 2000 murder.
And mostly he did, giving only occasional one-word answers to questions such as whether his chair was hard.
He never said he wanted to waive his rights.
But police continued to question him in a small room for nearly three hours.
Toward the end, they asked him if he prayed to God to forgive him “for shooting that boy down.” He said yes, and the statement was used to help convict him.
His lawyers appealed.
A state appeals court and then the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against him, but later a federal appeals court ruled in his favor. The appeals panel held that Mr.
Thompkins’ “persistent silence for nearly three hours in response to questioning and repeated invitations to tell his side of the story offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers” that he didn’t wish to waive his rights.
The high court unfortunately disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing voter, sided with the court’s four conservatives.
He observed: “Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He did neither.”
But this reasoning runs completely counter to the 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona. That ruling declared that if a suspect “indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court minor-ity, observed that the majority decision “turns Miranda upside down.” She’s right.
The ruling shifts the burden for protecting rights dramatically, from the police to the suspect.
The 1966 Miranda ruling often gets knocked. But it’s an acknowledgment that law enforcement can become overzealous in questioning suspects. Long interrogations can become coercive — sometimes to the detriment of suspects who in fact are innocent of a crime.
Miranda was an attempt to curb police abuses.
Now, thanks to the high court’s decision, suspects who are arrested need to tell police specifically that they don’t wish to talk if they want to protect their rights fully. That may be fine for those who keep up with the news and understand the ruling. But what about those who don’t?
[align=left]
">Copyright 2010 Monroe Publishing Co. 06/05/2010
[/align]
▼ To the point
A 5-4 decision on a Michigan case chips away at the right of innocent Americans not to talk after being arrested.
High court ruling erodes Miranda
“You have the right to remain silent.” But the U.S.
Supreme Court now says you may have to speak up to claim that right during police questioning after arrest.
This is the ironic effect of a 5-4 ruling of the court on Tuesday. As a result, Van Chester Thompkins, 33, will continue to serve a life sentence for the January, 2000, murder of Samuel Morris, who was killed in a drive-by shooting outside a mall in Southfield.
The new ruling essentially chips away at Americans’ Miranda rights. And that’s disturbing if you understand that those rights, as set down in a landmark 1966 ruling, were designed to protect all citizens — including the innocent.
Police advised Mr. Thompkins of his right to remain silent when they arrested him for the 2000 murder.
And mostly he did, giving only occasional one-word answers to questions such as whether his chair was hard.
He never said he wanted to waive his rights.
But police continued to question him in a small room for nearly three hours.
Toward the end, they asked him if he prayed to God to forgive him “for shooting that boy down.” He said yes, and the statement was used to help convict him.
His lawyers appealed.
A state appeals court and then the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against him, but later a federal appeals court ruled in his favor. The appeals panel held that Mr.
Thompkins’ “persistent silence for nearly three hours in response to questioning and repeated invitations to tell his side of the story offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers” that he didn’t wish to waive his rights.
The high court unfortunately disagreed. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a frequent swing voter, sided with the court’s four conservatives.
He observed: “Had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning. He did neither.”
But this reasoning runs completely counter to the 1966 decision in Miranda vs. Arizona. That ruling declared that if a suspect “indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the court minor-ity, observed that the majority decision “turns Miranda upside down.” She’s right.
The ruling shifts the burden for protecting rights dramatically, from the police to the suspect.
The 1966 Miranda ruling often gets knocked. But it’s an acknowledgment that law enforcement can become overzealous in questioning suspects. Long interrogations can become coercive — sometimes to the detriment of suspects who in fact are innocent of a crime.
Miranda was an attempt to curb police abuses.
Now, thanks to the high court’s decision, suspects who are arrested need to tell police specifically that they don’t wish to talk if they want to protect their rights fully. That may be fine for those who keep up with the news and understand the ruling. But what about those who don’t?
[align=left]
">Copyright 2010 Monroe Publishing Co. 06/05/2010
[/align]
