The Jersey Lawyer

The United States Supreme Court held today that a defendant’s silence during police interrogation after the defendant had been read his rights under Miranda did not invoke his right to remain silent.  In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the defendant was being questioned by police regarding a shooting that left one person dead.  The defendant was read his Miranda rights by detectives; however, he did not state that he wished to remain silent or that he wished to have a lawyer present.  Instead, defendant stayed silent for most of the interrogation and refused to answer questions.  However, near the end of the interrogation, the defendant made an incriminating statement, and that statement was used against him at the trial of the matter.  This case illustrates the importance of having a criminal defense lawyer at your side when being questioned by police or when charged with a criminal offense.

The defendant in this case was a suspect in a shooting outside a mall in Michigan that left one person dead.  Defendant was identified by eyewitnesses as being one of the shooters; however, he had fled the scene at the time of the shooting.  Defendant was captured about a year later in Ohio.  Two Michigan detectives traveled to Ohio to interrogate the defendant.  At the beginning of the interrogation, defendant was provided with a form outlining his rights under Miranda, including his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney.  One of the detectives read the form to defendant and asked him to sign the form; however, defendant refused to sign.  The officers then began to interrogate the defendant.

During the interrogation, defendant remained mostly silent and only answered a few questions with short one-word answers.  About two hours and 45 minutes into the interrogation, one of the detectives ask the defendant if he believed in God.   To this, defendant responded, “Yes.”  The detective then asked defendant if he prayed to God.  Again, the defendant responded “Yes.”  Finally, the detective asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”  Defendant again answered “Yes.”  Defendant was charged with first degree murder and other related offenses.  Defendant moved to suppress the statement he made to police officers and argued that he had invoked his right to remain silent under Miranda by remaining silent during the interrogation, had not waived that right during the course of the interrogation, and therefore the interrogation was unconstitutional.

In analyzing the legal issue in this case, the Supreme Court first noted that in Miranda, the Court had formulated a warning that must be administered to all suspects before they can be subjected to custodial interrogation.  The suspect must be warned “that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if  he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”    In the present case, all of the parties agreed that the warning given by the officers prior to interrogating the defendant complied with these requirements.

The defendant in this case argued that he invoked his rights under Miranda by refusing to answer any of the detectives’ questions, and therefore, the interrogation should have ceased prior to the time he made the incriminating statements, rendering those statements inadmissible at trial.   The Supreme Court noted that it has previously ruled that a suspect’s invocation of his right to remain silent or his right to an attorney must be “unambiguous.”   If a suspect makes a statement regarding his desire to remain silent or to have an attorney present that is ambiguous or equivocal, police may continue questioning and are not required to attempt to clarify the defendant’s statements.  The reason for this requirement, is that it results into an objective inquiry, and does not put the burden on police to guess the intent of a suspect who makes an ambiguous statement.  Because the defendant in this case did not unambiguously invoke his rights under Miranda, he did not invoke those rights.

Even if a defendant does not invoke his rights under Miranda, in order to use a statement obtained during an interrogation, the State must show that the defendant’s waiver of his rights under Miranda was knowing and voluntary.  The waiver must be knowing in the sense that the waiver was made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being waived and the consequences of the decision to waive that right.  The waiver must be voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice, rather than intimidation, coercion or deception.  According to the Supreme Court, in order to determine whether or not a suspect knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda, a court should look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the suspect was made aware of his rights, whether he understood those rights, and in spite of knowing and understanding those rights, made incriminating statements.  If the suspect has been made aware of his rights and understands those rights, but acts in a manner inconsistent with the exercise of those rights, the court can infer that he has knowingly and voluntarily waived those rights.

Based on that analysis, the Supreme Court concluded in this case that the defendant had waived his rights under Miranda through his actions.  Defendant was read his rights under Miranda, therefore, he was aware of those rights.  Defendant was also asked to read one of the Miranda warnings off of the form provided by police aloud to ensure that he could read and understand English, therefore he understood his rights.  Finally, his answering the officer’s question about whether he prayed that God would forgive him for the shooting constituted a waiver, because the defendant could have refused to answer that question if he wanted to assert his rights under Miranda.

As a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer, I tell my clients that they should always assert their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney when they are questioned by police.  This is especially true if the questioning is conducted while the client is in custody.  Police employ a variety of techniques in order to gather information from suspects, including promises of lighter punishments or expressions of sympathy or empathy with the person being questioned; however, in conducting the questioning, the police officer’s only job is to obtain evidence against the person to be used later against the suspect.  Often, cases that would otherwise be very weak for the State are made much stronger as a result of the suspect making incriminating statements to police.  This particular case further illustrates that when asserting his rights, a suspect should unequivocally state to the police: “I am asserting my right to remain silent, I do not want to answer any questions, and I want an attorney.”  A suspect charged with a crime in New Jersey should then contact a New Jersey criminal defense lawyer for representation.