Berghuis v. Thompkins: Miranda Rights and Waiver

Criminal Justice
Student Name
College

Berghuis v. Thompkins
560.U.S.370
2010
Synopsis
In Berghius v. Thompson case of the United States, the Supreme Court considered the
issue as to whether police may question a suspect in custody in instances where the suspect after
he or she receives the Miranda warnings has neither waived nor expressly made known use of his
right to remain silent.
In considering the matter, the court was basically determining on what the default rule
should be, after the Miranda rules are communicated to the suspect and understood. Therefore,
the question is; should the officer presume that the suspect is willing or unwilling to undergo the
interrogation? (Chakarian, 2011).
Character of Action
The case on the instance went to the trial court in the year 2002 where it held Thompkins
guilty of the offence of murder. Later in 2004, an appeal was made in the Michigan court of
appeals where in giving its ruling, it affirmed the sentence given and rejected the claims that
were raised regarding misconduct during prosecution and the violation of Thompkins Miranda
rights. Following that, the United States Eastern District Court of Michigan in 2005 did not allow
the prayer by Thompkins for grant of a habeas corpus writ.
On the other hand, the sixth circuit court of appeal reversed the decision of the district
court in 2006 and therefore granted him the prayer regarding the motion of Miranda and the

ineffective claim. Following this, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court by Mary Berghuis
who was holding Thompkins in the prison warden and by the state of Michigan
Facts of the Case
The facts to be discussed follows an incident that took place on 10th January 2000. The
incident took place in Southfield Michigan along a strip maII parking. The circumstances of the
incident are that; Samuel morris and Frederick France were driving through the mentioned strip
when bullets were sprayed on them resulting to the death of Samuel while Frederick sustained
some severe injuries.
Following this, Frederick indicated to the police that some men had gotten into a van and
pulled up alongside the car in which Morris and Frederick were. Shortly after, a male person
seated in the seat for passengers removed a pistol and lashed the car they were in with bullets.
Following the incident, the officers investigated which led to Van Chester Thompkins
And Eric Purifoy as the suspects. Later, Eric was arrested on the allegations and charged with
committing the offence of murder, that is, murder of Morris. In addition to that, he was charged
with the offence of assault and possessing weapons of the alleged offence. Subsequently, he was
acquitted of both charges and let free. On the other hand, Thompkins had managed to avoid the
police until 19th of February 2001 when he was arrested. This exactly amounted to not less than a
year after the incidence had taken place and six months after Erick had been acquitted of murder.
Following the arrest, Thompkins was interrogated by the police department of Southfield
3 days after the arrest at Ohio jail. At the start of the interrogation, the detective in charge that is,
Christopher Helgart, read to Thompkins his rights in which Thompkins responded verbally
indicating that he understood. However, he did not agree to signing a form that was to prove that

he acknowledged and understood his rights as read to. Also, during the entire period of the
interrogation, Thompkins remained silent most of the time and only answered the question with
use of few words like, “no,” “yeah,” and I do not know or through non-verbal responses. After
about three hours, the detective opted to use a different way. He proceeded to inquire whether
Thompkins believed in God and whether he was prayerful. He then followed by asking him
whether he had asked for God’s forgiveness for shooting the boy in which he responded by
saying “yes.”
Following Thompkins reply, at the trial the defense by trying to disapprove the
incriminating response indicated to the court that the evidence was intended at suppressing him.
In determining the issue, the trial court did not allow the motion and therefore ruled that;
Thompkins had not indicated his intention of relying on his right to not to engage the officers
and he limited the interaction with the officers by the way he responded to the questions. In
addition, the defense indicated that Eric was the one who had fired the bullets while Thompkins
was just a victim of the circumstance due to his presence. In supporting the position, the defense
brought into evidence the testimony by Fredrick and Purifoy while the detective stood to testify
the incriminating statement by Thompkins. Similarly, he also testified about the acquittal of
purify in the year 2000 and indicated that Erick had been charged in regard to the theory of an
Aider and Abettor.
Subsequently, the attorney representing Thompkins failed to indicate that; Eric’s acquittal
was to be taken into consideration regarding Thompkins credibility but not as evidence in the
substantive manner in determining whether he was guilty. As a result, the jury found Thompkins
guilty of murder.