creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
23 Oct 2014
Should We Strip Terrorists of Citizenship?

Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz doesn't trust Barack Obama to protect Americans against Ebola, defeat the … Read More.

19 Oct 2014
Why Are Democrats Cozy with the Clintons?

It's not surprising that many Democrats running for major offices this year would prefer not to sidle up to a … Read More.

16 Oct 2014
Inflated Fears of Ebola and Terrorism

Americans are living under a dire threat that could quickly escalate into a national emergency. No, not Ebola … Read More.

The Supreme Court Hears the Sounds of Silence

Comment

In the last 44 years, the Miranda warning has become as American as the Iowa State Fair. Most of us could recite it in our sleep, particularly the part that goes: You have the right to remain silent. Police and prosecutors, who once saw it as coddling criminals, have learned to live with this modest obligation.

But not everyone is so adaptable. Some people bridle at the notion of going along with something that protects the guilty as well as the innocent. Five of them sit on the Supreme Court of the United States.

They read the Miranda protections the way W.C. Fields read the Bible: looking for loopholes. That became blindingly evident this week when the court, by a 5-4 vote, ruled against a defendant who said he had been deprived of his freedom to keep his mouth shut.

After being arrested and told of his right to remain silent, Van Chester Thompkins proceeded to exercise it. He refused to speak, beyond a few one-word responses to innocuous questions, such as whether his chair was hard. But his police interrogators were not to be denied.

For nearly three hours they confined him in a small room and peppered him with questions. Finally, Thompkins was asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for "shooting that boy down," and he replied, "Yes." He was convicted of murder and sentenced to life without parole.

His lawyers said that having indicated his choice to remain silent, he should have been spared further grilling. On their side is common sense, which says that if someone announces you are free not to speak, not speaking is an unmistakable way to convey your exercise of that prerogative.

But common sense is not always abundant in the halls of justice. The Supreme Court claims that Thompkins' persistent silence didn't suggest a choice to remain silent. Its logic: How can I know you don't want to talk if you won't say anything?

It doesn't occur to the five justices that someone in the grasp of the police, after hours of relentless questioning, would conclude that his right to remain silent was meaningless — that he would be interrogated until he answered.

Justice Anthony Kennedy insisted there was no evidence the suspect had the slightest desire to invoke the privilege.

"Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police," asserted Kennedy.

If there is any doubt about the suspect's preference, the court established, it will be taken as consent to be questioned. If Kennedy were to try to strike up a conversation with someone at a bar, only to be ignored, he would assume she was dying to hear more.

Such obtuse logic is impossible to square with the 1966 Miranda decision, where the justices explained the psychological reality of a police interrogation. Someone being held involuntarily in a station house, they knew, will tend to assume that he must cooperate or suffer painful consequences.

The Miranda warning is one way to convey to the suspect — and the cops — that he has rights they must respect. "Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice," declared the court.

But just giving the warning is not enough. The court stressed that the police may not exploit ambiguities to nullify its effects.

"If the individual indicates in any manner , at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ," it said. "If the interrogation continues without the presence of an attorney and a statement is taken, a heavy burden rests on the government to demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination..." (my emphasis)

Not anymore, it doesn't. Now, says the court, it is the duty of any accused person "who wants to invoke his or her right to remain silent to do so unambiguously." The "heavy burden" lands on the suspect. If cops can trick him or wear him down, the justices say: Good for them.

Once upon a time, the Supreme Court tried to make sure that Americans under police suspicion could freely decide whether to exercise their constitutionally protected right against self-incrimination. I'm waiting to hear Kennedy and Co. express any similar commitment. And their silence is deafening.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
You are ridiculous. You make it sound, as if, he said, "Yes" and went straight to jail without any evidence. People living in trees, without benefit of TV know to say, "Lawyer". Your article was a waste of space. But, I'm sure that there will be people condemning me for my opinion.
Comment: #1
Posted by: David Henricks
Thu Jun 3, 2010 12:18 AM
The Supreme Court has held before that a person must invoke their rights unambiguosly. And that a person must aske for a lawyer in order for an interrogation to be stopped. Refusing to speak with out invoking the right is not enough. Bright line rules are important in criminal proceedings.
Comment: #2
Posted by: zach
Thu Jun 3, 2010 1:14 AM
The Supreme Court has held before that a person must invoke their rights unambiguosly. And that a person must aske for a lawyer in order for an interrogation to be stopped. Refusing to speak with out invoking the right is not enough. Bright line rules are important in criminal proceedings.
Comment: #3
Posted by: zach
Thu Jun 3, 2010 1:14 AM
AS A 30 YEAR POLICE OFFICER (RETIRED) I CAN TELL YOU THE RULES ALLOW US TO GO EVEN FURTHER. I CAN LIE TO HIM, WITNESSES, INFORMANTS, EVIDENCE, ETC. I CAN PUT TWO SUSPECTS IN A CAR PRIOR TO MIRANDA AND LET THEM SPEAK AND RECORD. (NO EXPATION OF PRIVACY) WITH PROBABLE CAUSE HE CAN BE HELD FOR 72 HOURS BEFORE SEEING A JUDGE. DURRING THAT TIME UNLESS HE INVOKES MIRANDA HE IS SUSPECT TO QUESTIONING. I GUESS WITH THE NY CAR BOMBER MUCH LONGER. SOME ON YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUEMENT ACESS THAT A DEFENDANT JUST BEING ARRESTED AUTOMATICALLY INVOKES MIRANDA. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WILL BE THE RULE IF WE EVER GET THAT FITH LIBERAL ON THE BENCH.
Comment: #4
Posted by: james bentley
Thu Jun 3, 2010 2:12 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 27 Oct 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 25 Oct 2014
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 24 Oct 2014

11 Feb 2007 Rudy Giuliani, Running Against Hamlet

5 Jun 2014 Curbing Carbon Vs. Rationalizing Recklessness

21 May 2009 China's Rocket to Modernity