On June 1, 2010, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in Berguis v. Thompkins (a copy of the opinon and digest may be accessed here). In the case, Mr. Thompkins was questioned by police following a shooting which led to a death. At the outset, the police advised Thompkins of his rights per Miranda v. Arizona. Thompkins remained silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but near the end, he answered “yes” when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. He later moved to suppress his statements, claiming that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that he had not waived that right during the interview. This statement was admitted at trial, where Thompkins was convicted of murder.

The Supreme Court ruled that Thompkins’ silence during the legthy interrogation did not invoke his right to remain silent. A suspect’s Miranda right to counsel must be invoked “unambiguously.” If the accused makes an “ambiguous or equivocal” statement or no statement, the police are not required to end the interrogation or ask questions to clarify the accused’s intent. The Court stated that, had Thompkins said that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk, he would have invoked his right to end the questioning.

This case provides an important guide to anyone accused or suspected of commiting a criminal offense. It is not enough to stay silent in the face of police questioning. A simple statement, “I do not wish to answer any questions, and would like to speak with an attorney” invokes both Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to remain silent and to consult with an attorney, and avoids any later confusion over what was intended by the defendant.