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 ...
The case involved a murder conviction based on a confession obtained during a 3-hour interrogation without invoking the right to remain silent. The Court held that the state court was reasonable in finding an implied waiver of the right to remain silent and rejecting the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.
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 · Thompkins was convicted of murder after giving a statement to police during a lengthy interrogation. The Supreme Court held that he did not invoke his right to remain silent and his statement was admissible.
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.
