Earlier this year, the Supreme Court released their 5-4 decision in a criminal case dealing primarily with the issue of Miranda Rights.
In this case, the defendant remained silent for two hours and forty five minutes of interrogation.
Finally, he was asked, "Do you believe in God?" and "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" He answered, "yes.
" The defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
On appeal, the defendant argues that his right to remain silent was invoked by his very act of refusing to respond to the questioning Initially, the US Court of Appeals agreed with his arguments that three hours of silence throughout constant questioning constituted an invocation of his right to remain silent.
However, the Supreme court reversed that decision in a 5-4 vote.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court altered the original Miranda rights.
While suspects are still entitled to be read their rights, they must make a clear and unambiguous statement that they do not want to talk to the police.
Simply remaining silent will not invoke their right.
If a suspect answers any question, their right is considered waived.
The ultimate impact of this ruling is that it is now possible for the police to continue interrogating a subject for any length of time until they obtain a confession.
Unless a suspect expressly announces that they are invoking their right to remain silent, they may unintentionally waive their rights.
The dissenting opinion warns that such a ruling presumes that a suspects rights have been waived even if their is no clear expression of their intent to do so, stating that the opinion is "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v.
Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation...
" The conclusion of this ruling is basically that a suspect is presumed to have waived their rights unless they have expressly invoked them.
Attorneys should begin to teach their clients to say "I am hereby expressly invoking my right to remain silent and my right to have my attorney present during any questioning.
" (At least until the Supreme Court rules that expressly invoking the right is not actually invoking the right)
In this case, the defendant remained silent for two hours and forty five minutes of interrogation.
Finally, he was asked, "Do you believe in God?" and "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" He answered, "yes.
" The defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
On appeal, the defendant argues that his right to remain silent was invoked by his very act of refusing to respond to the questioning Initially, the US Court of Appeals agreed with his arguments that three hours of silence throughout constant questioning constituted an invocation of his right to remain silent.
However, the Supreme court reversed that decision in a 5-4 vote.
In the majority opinion, the Supreme Court altered the original Miranda rights.
While suspects are still entitled to be read their rights, they must make a clear and unambiguous statement that they do not want to talk to the police.
Simply remaining silent will not invoke their right.
If a suspect answers any question, their right is considered waived.
The ultimate impact of this ruling is that it is now possible for the police to continue interrogating a subject for any length of time until they obtain a confession.
Unless a suspect expressly announces that they are invoking their right to remain silent, they may unintentionally waive their rights.
The dissenting opinion warns that such a ruling presumes that a suspects rights have been waived even if their is no clear expression of their intent to do so, stating that the opinion is "a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v.
Arizona has long provided during custodial interrogation...
" The conclusion of this ruling is basically that a suspect is presumed to have waived their rights unless they have expressly invoked them.
Attorneys should begin to teach their clients to say "I am hereby expressly invoking my right to remain silent and my right to have my attorney present during any questioning.
" (At least until the Supreme Court rules that expressly invoking the right is not actually invoking the right)