The Supreme Court issued Berghuis v. Thompkins today. In it they held that a defendant must make an affirmative invocation of his or her right to remain silent and to an attorney.
Thompkins, the defendant, was subject to a 3 hour interrogation in an 8 x 10 foot room. during the entire interview, Thompkins remained silent — exercising his right to remain so. SCOTUS decided that remaining silent isn’t enough, a defendant must make a “simple, unambiguous” statement such as “that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police.” (page 10 of the majority opinion) and that failing to make such a statement meant that he did not invoke his right. To remain silent. By remaining silent.
The court then decides that remaining silent for nearly 3 hours and finally giving a monosyllabic response is “sufficient to show a course of conduct indicating waiver.” (page 14 of the majority opinion)
Among the ridiculousness of this decision — and I believe it is ridiculous — the thing that strikes me the most is the way the court analyzes the issues. The Miranda warnings exist to inform defendants of their rights, and the options open to them. They are asked whether they understand the rights, so the warning is obviously for the defendant. So why does the court (and I’m not limiting this to Berghuis, it applies equally to earlier cases such as Davis, which this opinion relied upon) assume that the defendant knows he must break his silence immediately after being told that he has the right to remain silent?! Change the #$!@#& wording of the warning! Everything else in the opinion stems from that simple idiotic assumption. Waiver only comes up since the court found that Thompkins never invoked his right to remain silent.
I know I’m not adding any new or brilliant analysis, but I had to get that off of my chest.