Did the Supreme Court Weaken Miranda?

Did the Supreme Court weaken the protections afforded under Miranda?  In what many are calling a controversial move, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices are contending turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”

The case that served as the catalyst for this change involved a criminal suspect named Van Chester Thompkins who remained mostly silent for three hours of interrogation after being told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney. He neither acknowledged that he was willing to talk, nor indicated that he wanted any questioning to stop.  But detectives persisted until asking Thompkins if he believed in God. When asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins looked away and answered, “Yes.” The statement was used against him, and he was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Michigan.

The recent decision has received much backlash and the concerns are well noted.  Many have contended that suspects will not be aware of the fact that they have to overtly invoke the right to remain silent.  Opponents have further maintained that requiring criminal suspects to now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent is counterintuitive because it requires them to speak.  Although those concerns are valid, I do believe that mechanisms have to be put in place that prevent suspects from recanting on a statement and finding refuge under safeguards provided for under Miranda.  In this case, if Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to the detective’s questions, or he could have asserted his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation.  The fact that Thompkins made a statement about three hours after receiving a Miranda warning shows that he understood the Miranda warning and then effectively waived his right to remain silent by making a statement thereafter.