.
story
 | WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court scaled back the well-known Miranda right Tuesday and enhanced prosecutors' ability to assert that a suspect waived his right to remain silent even when he did not say so. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said that once rights have been read and questioning begun, a suspect must clearly declare that he wants to remain silent and cannot simply be silent. The decision in a Michigan case broke along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the opinion, joined by fellow conservatives. The four liberals dissented in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor who warned that the decision "turns Miranda upside down." She said defendants often use equivocal or colloquial language in attempting to invoke their right to silence and that requiring a clear declaration would weaken the right. "There is no question that this decision authorizes lower courts to construe ambiguous situations in favor of police and prosecutors," said Stanford University law professor Robert Weisberg. |
Please check this out, why you should never talk to the police: Never talk to the police
 | Van Chester Thompkins, suspected in the 2000 shooting death of Samuel Morris outside a mall in Southfield, Mich., said little during a nearly three-hour interrogation, at the start of which he was read Miranda warnings.
Two hours and 45 minutes later, an officer asked, "Do you believe in God?" Thompkins said yes. The officer then asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Thompkins said "Yes." Thompkins was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. On appeal, he said he invoked his right to remain silent by refusing to answer questions for a long period of time and that his statements should not have been used at trial. |
Thomkins case is a perfect example of what officer Bruch tells us in this video about how police get suspects to talk....
And dont miss this point: If they ask you about something unrelated to the crime they are actually investigating, and you lie to them and they find out, they can then charge you for lying to them. That is why Martha Stewart spent time in jail, she never spent time in jail on the actual stock market charges, it was for lying to the police about something else. The police can lie to you all they want, but you can never do that to them.
And anything you say gives them a chance to misconstrue....
The policeman's technique was also standard sales technique: You get the prospect to say yes to things, to get them comfortable with saying yes to you, so that you can then go for the close with them being very likely to keep saying yes: "Your car is very nice, I bet you really like it? You are such a nice person, don't you agree? You would like to supersize that order, right?"
So thompkins idea that he could just keep his mouth shut was good, but it makes no sense to assert a right to keep your mouth shut, and then open it, and then pretend you didn't say anything..... The real issue is police continuing to pressure for 3 hours a man who clearly wanted to be silent. That is a form of torture and coersion. Do that to your child, and CPS would probably find you guilty of child abuse..... But he should have kept his mouth shut.
Most criminal defense attorneys probably have more problems defending their clients flapping jaws than defending against what their clients actually did or the actual evidence against them.