Berghuis v. Thompkins

BERGHUIS v. THOMPKINS (2010), deals with an individual who was determined to have waived his Miranda rights after “he was largely silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but near the end, he answered ‘yes’ when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting.” A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” Davis v. United States, 512 U. S. 452, 459. If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation, ibid., or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent.

For full article click here:

Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010)