#15 Berghuis v. Thompkins

In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins.

A man is arrested, informed of his rights, and interrogated. But for two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, he is mostly silent. At trial he argued that he was exercising his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona, and police should have stopped the interrogation. The Appeals Court thought so, too.

The question before the court: was the Appeals Court correct in its interpretation of the right to remain silent?

Facts of the Case

It all begins with a shooting outside a mall in Southfield, Michigan, that killed one man and wounded another. The suspect in the crime, VT, fled the state, but was found a year later in Ohio. So 2 Southfield officers traveled to Ohio to question VT about the crime before their transfer back to Michigan. The interrogation took place in an 8 by 10 foot room, with VT seated in a kind of schoolroom chair/desk combo.

At the start, officers provided VT with a form concerning their Miranda rights that read as follows:

Notification of Constitutional Rights and Statements

1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have a right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions and you have the right to have a lawyer present with you while you are answering any questions.
4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before any questioning, if you wish one.
5. You have the right to decide at any time before or during questioning to use your right to remain silent and your right to talk to a lawyer while you are being questioned.

To confirm that VT could read and understand English, the officers asked them to read this 5th statement out loud, which VT did. Then, the officers read out the first 4 statements to VT, and asked them to sign the form to acknowledge that they understood their rights, but VT declined to sign the form. It’s possible that VT verbally acknowledged that they understood their rights, but the record is conflicted on this point.

Following the Miranda warning, the officers began their 3-hour interrogation, and for about 2 hours and 45 minutes, VT remained mostly silent. There were a few small verbal responses, mostly things like yeah, or no, or I don’t know, as well as some head nods. VT also stated he didn’t want a peppermint when asked, and that his chair was hard. Apart from these few interactions, as noted in a Wall Street Journal article, the police themselves considered it, “nearly a monologue.”

During this period of near-silence, VT never said that they wished to invoke their right to remain silent or their right to an attorney. Instead, they were just mostly silent.

At the end of the interview, the officers changed tactics and asked VT if they believed in God. According to officer testimony, VT’s eyes, “welled with tears,” and they replied yes. The officer then asked “Do you pray to God?” and again VT replied yes. Finally, the officer asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” and VT also replied yes.

VT was ultimately charged with first-degree murder, along with firearms-related crimes. At trial, their defense moved to suppress the statements that VT made during the interrogation, arguing that VT’s silence during almost the entire interview was a clear invocation of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent. The motion was denied.

Ultimately VT was convicted by a jury on all counts, and they were sentenced to life without parole.

Something else to note about the trial before we move on: there were a couple of other things that happened concerning the testimony or another person who was allegedly in the vehicle with VT at the time of the shooting and ineffective counsel, but to keep things simple we are going to disregard all of that for this episode and just focus on the interrogation and its results.

So, following the trial, VT appealed their conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court should not have allowed VT’s statements at the end of the interrogation to be used against them since they had clearly been invoking their right to silence. The appeal was rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals on the grounds that VT had not invoked their right to remain silent.

Next, VT filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, but the petition was rejected as the District Court also found that VT had not invoked their right to silence.

Undeterred, VT appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing once more that they had not waived their right to silence. This time, the court agreed, and reversed the decisions of the previous courts. They wrote in their decision that VT’s, “persistent silence for nearly three hours in response to questioning and repeated invitations to tell his side of the story offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers: [VT] did not wish to waive his rights.”

In response to the reversal in the US Court of Appeals, the state of Michagan appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, meaning it is up to our justices to decide: do you have to state explicitly that you are invoking your right to silence, or is remaining silent enough?

Now, if you’re thinking this case sounds a little familiar, it is very similar, though not exactly the same, as North Carolina v. Butler, which the 3 of you heard in a prior episode. As a quick reminder, in that case WB refused to sign a form acknowledging their Miranda rights, never asked for a lawyer, participated in the interrogation, and then appealed their conviction on the grounds that their statements to police should have been suppressed since they never declined a lawyer and a lawyer wasn’t present. The Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that talking to the police implied that WB was waiving their right to counsel.

Ruling of the Relitigated Justices

Click here to show how the Relitigated justices ruled on the case…

Votes By Party

Berghuis

0

Argued by Nikki

v.

Thompkins

3

Argued by Jarret

Votes By Justice

Chief Justice Adam

Thompkins

Justice Mike

Thompkins

Justice Graham

Thompkins

References