Berghuis v. Thompkins Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Berghuis v. Thompkins | 130 S. Ct. 2250 (2010)
In Miranda versus Arizona, the United States Supreme Court held that, before a suspect’s confession is admissible, police officers must obtain a valid waiver of the suspect’s right to remain silent. How does a suspect invoke the right to silence? By explicitly saying he wants to remain silent? Or is simply remaining silent sufficient? The Court addressed that question, and a related question concerning waiver of the right, in Berghuis versus Thompkins.
Police officers suspected that Van Thompkins had committed a murder. Police officers arrested and interrogated Thompkins. An officer provided Thompkins with written Miranda warnings to read. The officer also read aloud some of the rights. The officer then asked Thompkins to read aloud the specific warning that he could invoke his right to silence at any time during the interrogation. Thompkins refused to sign a written acknowledgement that he understood his rights. During the next 2 hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins made a few limited verbal statements, but generally remained silent each time an officer asked him incriminating questions.
The officers eventually asked Thompkins whether he believed in God and prayed for forgiveness for killing the victim. In response to that question, Thompkins’s eyes welled up in tears, and he responded, yes. He refused to say anything further, and the interrogation ended.
Based on Thompkins’s incriminating admission, he was charged with first-degree murder in Michigan state court. Thompkins filed a pretrial motion to suppress his admission, contending that the officers had violated his right to silence under Miranda. Thompkins argued that he had invoked his right to silence by remaining silent for the overwhelming majority of the interrogation period before he incriminated himself. He alternatively contended that he didn’t validly waive his right to silence. The trial court denied Thompkins’s motion. At trial, an officer testified about Thompkins’s admission. The jury convicted Thompkins of murder, and he was sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Thompkins appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court denied Thompkins’s petition for discretionary review. Thompkins then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, which the federal district court denied. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court, and concluded that Thompkins hadn’t validly waived his right to silence.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/berghui...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/berghui...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our UA-cam Channel ► ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@andrewogallo5215]

Thank you for making my homework easy

[@KalebK1]

Who is Berghuis in this case?

[@MrErgenta]

Why is it in every single video, you lay out a nice foundation but then fail to execute on the closer? If the cake has no icing, you just have fluff. Why do you insist on just giving fluff?