Do you really have the RIGHT to remain silent or do you have to SAY it?
Most of us have grown up knowing about our Miranda rights from the Miranda Case, which addresses our coveted right to remain silent. You've seen it a million times in television shows and movies. An arresting officer starts telling the arrested party that they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say can and will be held against them in a court of law. Seems pretty clear, right?
Not so fast.
In a recent United States Supreme Court decision (Berghis, Warden v. Thompkins), Mr. Thompkins was silent while in custody for three hours, and then only said "yes" to praying to God to forgive him for the shooting in question. Mr. Thompkins challenged that statement as admissible in court to be used against him by the prosecution, the reason being that he had invoked his 5th Amendment right, and that the statement he made was involuntary.
An individual must invoke his 5th Amendment right "unambiguously," according to this newest decision from the United States Supreme Court. If the request to invoke an individual's 5th Amendment rights is "ambiguous or equivocal" or give no statement at all, the police are not required to end the interrogation. And in this case, they did not.
Therefore, what is there to be gleaned from this opinion?
You have a right to remain silent, and if you want to keep that right you must SAY SO! |