Posted by Kromey at 3:33pm Jun 2 '10In other words, all Thompkins needed to do was continue exercising his right to remain silent by remaining silent, but by breaking his silence he waived his right. The police had no obligation to cut short the interrogation.
Um... yeah! If you have the right to remain silent, but you speak anyway, how could that not mean that you have waived your right to not speak?
The only time the cops have any obligation to cut short an interrogation is when a suspect asserts their right to an attorney. Sounds like this guy didn't do that, and instead his lawyers were arguing that his right to remain silent was infringed because he chose to speak?? And people are surprised by this???
This doesn't "turn Miranda upside down." C'mon folks, it's common sense that if you choose to speak in response to a question, you have chosen not to remain silent! I mean, seriously, why is this even in question?
Um... yeah! If you have the right to remain silent, but you speak anyway, how could that not mean that you have waived your right to not speak?
The only time the cops have any obligation to cut short an interrogation is when a suspect asserts their right to an attorney. Sounds like this guy didn't do that, and instead his lawyers were arguing that his right to remain silent was infringed because he chose to speak?? And people are surprised by this???
This doesn't "turn Miranda upside down." C'mon folks, it's common sense that if you choose to speak in response to a question, you have chosen not to remain silent! I mean, seriously, why is this even in question?
Re: Supreme Court Case on Miranda Rights - Kromey