Search results
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands their right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or waive the ...
No. 08–1470. Argued March 1, 2010—Decided June 1, 2010. After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U. S. 436 , Detective Helgert and another Michigan officer interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died.
1 de mar. de 2010 · Berghuis v. Thompkins. Share. Holding: The police are required to stop questioning a suspect once he invokes his Miranda right to remain silent. In this case, the Court held that a suspect did not invoke his right to remain silent by simply not answering questions.
20 de mar. de 2017 · Berghuis v. Thompkins Case Brief. Statement of the Facts: Van Chester Thompkins was a suspect in a shooting death that occurred in Michigan. Upon arrest, Michigan police properly advised Thompkins of his Miranda rights. Thompkins appeared to understand those rights but refused to sign a Miranda form.
A multimedia judicial archive of the Supreme Court of the United States.
1 de jun. de 2010 · SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. BERGHUIS, WARDEN v . THOMPKINS. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit. No. 08–1470. Argued March 1, 2010—Decided June 1, 2010. After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v.
1 de mar. de 2009 · In February of 2001, Southfield, Michigan police officers questioned Van Chester Thompkins (“Thompkins”) for roughly three hours about a shooting that had occurred over one year prior. Although Thompkins remained silent for much of the interrogation, he ultimately provided police with incriminating statements.
