Supreme Court Limits Right Against Self-Incrimination

[mrjarrell]

Once again the SCOTUS has chosen to defer to police where our rights are concerned. Par for the course, given the direction this country's been traveling in for decades.

via Flex Your Rights

The Supreme Court ruled today in Berghuis v. Thompkins that a criminal suspect must specifically invoke the right against self-incrimination in order for constitutional protections to apply.
The case centered around the interrogation of murder suspect Van Chester Thompkins, who remained virtually silent for hours, before giving a few brief responses to police questions. Most significantly, Thompkins answered "yes" when asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" The statement was introduced at trial and Thompkins was convicted.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held that criminal suspects who do not clearly state their intention to remain silent are presumed to have waived their 5th Amendment rights. Ironically, suspects must literally open their mouths and speak in order for their silence to be legally protected. The new rule will defer to police in cases where the suspect fails to unambiguously assert their right to remain silent.
Naturally, Flex Your Rights is concerned about any retreat from the basic principle that criminal suspects should not be compelled or coerced into incriminating themselves. Today's ruling will undoubtedly create additional challenges for suspects who already understand too little about how their constitutional rights apply during police interrogations.
Fortunately, however, the Berghuis decision leaves intact the best strategy for handling any police interrogation: keeping your mouth shut. Requiring suspects with limited legal knowledge to clearly assert their rights may seem a bit strict, but it's irrelevant if the suspect never says a word to begin with. The point of the 5th Amendment isn't to protect you after you've foolishly incriminated yourself, it's to remind you that you're not obligated to answer police questions in the first place.
Ultimately, the burden is on each of us to understand our rights and use that information to make the best decisions. It's unlikely that any Supreme Court decision will ever change the fact that remaining silent is your best and only strategy if police are asking you incriminating questions.

Best to also remember this advice, too.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"]Don't talk to cops.[/ame]

 

[TRWXXA]

I don't see a problem with this ruling. The right against self-incrimination doesn't mean that you don't have the freedom to hang-yourself by making incriminating statements. To paraphrase Ron White... "You have the right to remain silent, but may not have the ability."

And when a suspect chooses to ignore his 5th Amendment right, the police are NOT obligated to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they don't hear what he's saying.

You want a lawyer? Then say you want a lawyer.

You don't want to make any statements? Then say you don't wish to make any statements, and keep your pie-hole shut.

Too stupid to know what your constitutional rights are? The cops tell you what they are (usually several times).

The point of the 5th Amendment isn't to protect you after you've foolishly incriminated yourself, it's to remind you that you're not obligated to answer police questions in the first place.
Ultimately, the burden is on each of us to understand our rights and use that information to make the best decisions. It's unlikely that any Supreme Court decision will ever change the fact that remaining silent is your best and only strategy if police are asking you incriminating questions.

With freedom comes responsibility. It is your responsibility to know and understand your rights. I think the Miranda warning is B.S., and just a tool for left-wing, criminal-loving defense lawyers to get their stupid, dirtbag clients back on the street. BTW: The patron saint of stupid criminals, Ernesto Miranda, had his verbal and written confessions throw out, got a new trial, AND WAS STILL CONVICTED!

 

[jbombelli]

I don't see a problem with this ruling. The right against self-incrimination doesn't mean that you don't have the freedom to hang-yourself by making incriminating statements. To paraphrase Ron White... "You have the right to remain silent, but may not have the ability."

And when a suspect chooses to ignore his 5th Amendment right, the police are NOT obligated to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend they don't hear what he's saying.

You want a lawyer? Then say you want a lawyer.

You don't want to make any statements? Then say you don't wish to make any statements, and keep your pie-hole shut.

Too stupid to know what your constitutional rights are? The cops tell you what they are (usually several times).



With freedom comes responsibility. It is your responsibility to know and understand your rights. I think the Miranda warning is B.S., and just a tool for left-wing, criminal-loving defense lawyers to get their stupid, dirtbag clients back on the street. BTW: The patron saint of stupid criminals, Ernesto Miranda, had his verbal and written confessions throw out, got a new trial, AND WAS STILL CONVICTED!

Yeah. You may not have the ability to remain silent when you've been kept awake under harsh questioning for 36 straight hours without sleep, food or water, until the police finally break you and force some BS confession out of you.

I would bet that you do not know truly know all your rights. Why? The Supreme Court rulings on the 4th Amendment alone comprise several thousand pages. Have you memorized them all? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Yeah. You may not have the ability to remain silent when you've been kept awake under harsh questioning for 36 straight hours without sleep, food or water, until the police finally break you and force some BS confession out of you.

I would bet that you do not know truly know all your rights. Why? The Supreme Court rulings on the 4th Amendment alone comprise several thousand pages. Have you memorized them all? Somehow I doubt it.

Do you have some factual data to support that statement, or are you stating a hypothetical? I've certainly never heard of _police_ questioning someone like that, at least not in the past 20 years. And if you don't have some data to support that statement, then I respectfully call BS on your whole premise.

 

[downzero]

Seems nothing's new around here. People don't care about their rights until they are personally affected, and then, of course, they mean the world.

 

[jbombelli]

Do you have some factual data to support that statement, or are you stating a hypothetical? I've certainly never heard of _police_ questioning someone like that, at least not in the past 20 years. And if you don't have some data to support that statement, then I respectfully call BS on your whole premise.

You should do a little research on this before you open your mouth and wrongly call BS.

Here's a couple of names for you to research, to get you started:

Michael Gayles
Corey Beale
Keith Longtin
Robert Angel Perez
Charlie King

That should get you started. Now, go do some homework on the interrogation techniques the police used with these individuals in order to gain "confessions."

 

[Rob377]

Yeah. You may not have the ability to remain silent when you've been kept awake under harsh questioning for 36 straight hours without sleep, food or water, until the police finally break you and force some BS confession out of you.

I would bet that you do not know truly know all your rights. Why? The Supreme Court rulings on the 4th Amendment alone comprise several thousand pages. Have you memorized them all? Somehow I doubt it.

And what does that have to do with this ruling?
Somehow, requiring the suspect to say "I'm not going to talk" is going to prevent coerced confessions?

Coerced confession have been inadmissible for a long, long time. This ruling doesn't change that one bit.
Talking about coerced confessions here is a non-sequitor and a blatant red herring.


The issue of waiver has nothing to do with coerced confessions. This is a good ruling that makes it a bright line rule for police. You either assert the right or you don't. No gray area, no room for "well, he kinda sorta maybe said he didn't want to talk, so lets throw the confession out" nonsense.


Knowing your rights isn't that hard. The cops tell what they are.
It's really pretty darn simple. "I'm not talking to you and I want a lawyer"
How hard was that?

 

[jbombelli]

And what does that have to do with this ruling?
Somehow, requiring the suspect to say "I'm not going to talk" is going to prevent coerced confessions?

Coerced confession have been inadmissible for a long, long time. This ruling doesn't change that one bit.
Talking about coerced confessions here is a non-sequitor and a blatant red herring.


The issue of waiver has nothing to do with coerced confessions. This is a good ruling that makes it a bright line rule for police. You either assert the right or you don't. No gray area, no room for "well, he kinda sorta maybe said he didn't want to talk, so lets throw the confession out" nonsense.


Knowing your rights isn't that hard. The cops tell what they are.
It's really pretty darn simple. "I'm not talking to you and I want a lawyer"
How hard was that?

It's really NOT quite that simple. There are times that you can be questioned as a suspect in a crime AND YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT, NOR DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Do you know when those times are?


If not, then you have some homework to do.

 

[Expat]

The interrogation began around 1:30 p.m. and lasted about three hours.

where does it say 36 hours?

 

[Rob377]

Cite me some cases in which coerced confessions have been held admissible, counselor.

 

[96firephoenix]

There are times that ... YOU AND I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT, NOR DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Do you know when those times are?

when you get caught by the FBI?


seriously though, constitutional protections against an overbearing government aren't case-sensitive. that's what makes this America. the fact that you are A) innocent until proven guilty and B) entitled to your rights no matter what crime you are accused of. go to England, Slovakia or Russia if you want rights that change depending on what crime you're accused of.

 

[jbombelli]

where does it say 36 hours?

I guess you're right. No police officers anywhere would ever use such tactics. NOBODY HAS EVER been CONVICTED after forced into making a false confession. EVER.

I'm done with this thread. Some of you really have no clue how things work sometimes in the REAL WORLD.

 

[jbombelli]

when you get caught by the FBI?


seriously though, constitutional protections against an overbearing government aren't case-sensitive. that's what makes this America. the fact that you are A) innocent until proven guilty and B) entitled to your rights no matter what crime you are accused of. go to England, Slovakia or Russia if you want rights that change depending on what crime you're accused of.

No. It's called the "Grand Jury." When you're called before a grand jury, you have no right to an attorney, nor do you have the right to remain silent. And they WILL question you about whatever crime you're suspected of committing. The Exclusionary Rule does NOT apply to Grand Jury proceedings whatsoever.

 

[Rob377]

Defendants don't even have the right to appear at a grand jury proceeding. Never have.
You do realize grand juries can't convict anyone of anything?
Many states domt even bother them.

 

[jbombelli]

Defendants don't even have the right to appear at a grand jury proceeding. Never have.
You do realize grand juries can't convict anyone of anything?
Many states domt even bother them.

I realize that. But they CAN be FORCED TO APPEAR if the prosecutor wants to do so.

And I realize they don't convict. However, they can INDICT you using illegally obtained evidence that would NEVER be allowed in COURT, and publish that indictment in the news, and RUIN you (Mike Nifong).

Although many states DON'T use them, MANY DO. And since the conversation was about the 5th Amendment, which is not limited to just some states, this tangent applies.


And now I'm truly done with this thread, since I have other things to do today.

 

[Rob377]

5th Amendment self incrimination still applies to a defendant at a Grand Jury.
It's still a red herring that has nothing to do with waiver of one's right to remain silent, or even coerced confessions.

 

[Fargo]

5th Amendment self incrimination still applies to a defendant at a Grand Jury.

This^

That question was debated in depth by multiple attorneys in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ussion/93060-carl_brizzi_drops_charges-3.html

Additionally, grand jury testimony is almost a polar opposite of police questioning as it is almost always completely inadmissable on its face.

Joe

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

I generally agree with the Supreme Courts decision on this one. However, as I see the problem too many people are not as comfortable and/or desensitized to confrontation as most LE officers are, thus not allowing for rights to be fully exercised.

My agreement is that I see no problem in having every person responsible for exercising and demanding their rights. This burden is a responsibility of every American, just as it is our responsibility to defend ourselves, seek education and opportunity and so forth.

The problem as I see it is in what Professor James Duane talks about: the ability for LE to put together a case that may appear reasonable but in fact is not. Statements made to LE in the heat of the moment or in a stressful situation may provide some evidence that will convict someone who is innocent, BUT who has said something that when combined with another piece of evidence may look like proof of guilt.

The fact is that most people when questioned by LE or anyone of authority will simply start talking without even stopping to consider the potential ramifications of their words. As most LE officers are good and decent people abuse is limited, yet the potential for abuse or simply lazy police work is possible.

I hope that this decision has the positive affect that the sad case of Terry Schiavo did, that being to educate Americans on their need to exercise their rights. In the Schiavo case it illuminated the need to have a living will. I hope this case leads the way to more Americans saying, "Thanks but no thanks. I am exercising my right to remain silent. Have a nice day, officer."

Regards,

Doug

PS - Do not forget the other important phrase, "I do not consent to a search."

 

[TRWXXA]

And I realize they don't convict. However, they can INDICT you using illegally obtained evidence that would NEVER be allowed in COURT, and publish that indictment in the news, and RUIN you (Mike Nifong).

BUUUUZZZZZZZ!!! Thank you for playing.

The correct answer is: Mike Nifong claimed to have evidence that he truly did not possess, used evidence he knew to be false, and actually witheld evidence that exonerated the accused. He did not use "illegally obtained evidence."

And now I'm truly done with this thread, since I have other things to do today.

We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

 

[Rob377]

Nifong also ended up disbarred, disgraced and bankrupt as a result of his actions.