http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2010/06/02/copy/after-miranda-rights-read-burden-falls-on-suspect.html said:
U.S. Supreme Court
After Miranda rights read, burden falls on suspect
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 02:51 AM
By David G. Savage
McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court backed off yesterday from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda decision and its right to remain silent, ruling that a crime suspect's words can be used against him if he fails to clearly tell police he does not want to talk.
In the past, the court had said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect has "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights. Some police departments tell officers not to begin questioning until a suspect has waived his rights, usually by signing a waiver form.
But in yesterday's 5-4 decision, the court shifted the balance in favor of the police. It said the suspect has a duty to speak up and to say he does not want to talk. Moreover, the police are "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote.
In her first strongly written dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling "turns Miranda upside down" and "marks a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination."
Some experts on police questioning said the court's shift will be felt in stationhouses across the country.
"This is the most important Miranda decision in a decade," said Charles Weisselberg, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "This decision approves of the practice of giving the warnings and then asking questions of the suspect, without asking first whether he wants to waive his rights."
In the case decided yesterday, Van Thompkins was a suspect in a shooting death in Southfield, Mich. A detective read Thompkins his rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer. Thompkins said he understood but did not sign a form.
For about two hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins said nothing, until a detective asked him if he believed in God and then said: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?
"Yes," Thompkins said before looking away. He refused to sign a confession or to speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based in large measure on his one-word reply.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins' conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling and reinstated the conviction. A suspect who wants to invoke his right to remain silent must "do so unambiguously," Kennedy said. "Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his right to cut off questioning."
Joining Kennedy to form the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Joining Sotomayor in dissent were Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
The California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation praised the decision. The high court "recognized the practical realities that the police face in dealing with suspects," said Kent Scheidegger, the group's legal director.
But Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the case "demonstrates the power of custodial interrogation to wear down the defendant's willpower, which is what Miranda was designed to prevent."
The majority ruling is in line with the position taken by the Obama administration and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who has been nominated for the high court.
