The list of things I don’t understand is already rather lengthy. And now it’s one item longer: I don’t understand the position of the dissenting minority in yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on Miranda rights.
To recap …
The latest case concerned Van Chester Thompkins, a Michigan man accused of shooting another man to death in 2000 outside a mall. Arrested a year later, Mr. Thompkins was read his Miranda rights but refused to sign a form acknowledging that he understood them.
Mr. Thompkins then remained almost entirely silent in the face of three hours of interrogation, though he did say that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.
After two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, Mr. Thompkins said yes in response to each of three questions: “Do you believe in God?” “Do you pray to God?” And, crucially, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”
His affirmative response to the last question was used against him at trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder.
The SCOTUS majority concluded that “courts need not suppress statements made by defendants who received [Miranda] warnings, did not expressly waive their rights and spoke only after remaining silent through hours of interrogation.”
The minority, via Justice Sotomayor, argued that this “decision ‘turns Miranda upside down’ and ‘bodes poorly for the fundamental principles that Miranda protects.'”
How so?
Consider the words expressing the rights …
“You have the right to remain silent. If you give up the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you desire an attorney and cannot afford one, an attorney will be obtained for you before police questioning.”
It seems the SCOTUS minority wants to strictly define the phrase “If you give up the right to remain silent,” so that the relinquishment of this right involves written consent, or some other form of consent more definitive than the mere act of speaking, i.e., of not remaining silent.
Where’s the common sense in this discussion?
If I’m told I have the right to keep my mouth shut and failure to do so could result in “anything” I say being used against me in a court of law — then there’s no question. It’s a bright line: Shut up or suffer the potential consequences.
And please don’t tell me this is a matter of lengthy interrogation wearing me down. I also have the right to have an attorney present before questioning begins. But if I decline or otherwise fail to request an attorney before questioning, and then I speak — whether it’s after five minutes or five days — I’ve willingly acted contrary to my clearly communicated rights. In other words, I’ve relinquished those rights.
I don’t doubt that certain law enforcement officials play loose with the rules. I don’t doubt that they sometimes delay the first meeting between attorney and accused. I don’t doubt that there are certain cognitive-impaired individuals who need additional protection.
So let’s deal with those issues. But let’s not pretend that capable adults who, without coercion, make the voluntary decision to talk after a few hours of questioning, without their attorneys present, have done anything other than relinquish the rights that were both available and explained to them.