By Jillian Farrel -- March 1, 2010
Photos by AP
-thumb-300x304.jpg)
After a person is arrested, the police officers will say "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you," which is commonly known as Miranda rights.
These rights were created in 1966 as a result of a united States Supreme Court case, known as Miranda v. Arizona. The warning is intended to preserve the fifth amendment right to refuse to answer any self-incriminating questions. If the suspect is not read his/her Miranda rights, then voluntary statements can be used in court.
Van Chester Thompkins was told by a police offer he had the right to remain silent, and so he did. His silence never indicated that he was not ever going to speak, so the police kept interrogating him.
Several Supreme Court justices indicated Monday that suspects should tell the police they want to remain silent to take advantage of the Miranda rights. This case is an example of the judicial system's inability to clearly define Miranda rights.
Thompkins was arrested in 2001 for murder and was interrogated for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his rights and he said he understood. The police offers in the room said he talked very little. His answers were a simple "yes" or "no" to three questions.
After answering "yes" when asked, "did you pray for forgiveness for shooting that boy down," Thompkins wanted his statement thrown out because of his decision to invoke the Miranda rights.
The Cincinnati-based court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction. According to Chief Justice John Roberts, "there is no clearly established law that says he has to assert his right to remain silent." The court will rule later on this year.
