Supreme Court Makes Miranda Decision

I'm not feeling too comfortable today. That's because I find myself in the unenviable position of agreeing with Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Thomas and Roberts (along with Alito and Kennedy). These three justices have made so many bad decisions (thankfully, many of those were overruled by the other justices) that it always bothers me when I find myself agreeing with them.

But they are right this time. I guess the old adage is right -- even a blind horse can find an acorn once in a while. I seem to be departing from many of my fellow leftists on this decision, but I have never believed in blind allegiance to any ideology -- the left is not always right and the right is not always wrong. Political and ideological decisions must be dictated by knowledge and conscience, not dogma.

The case involves the Miranda Warning in a murder case. The defendant was convicted on the basis of his one-word confession after being mirandized and then questioned for an extended period of time. Here is what happened (according to the blog Parsley's Pics -- a blog I respect and usually agree with):

"In this case, Michigan police had informed the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or speak to a lawyer.

But he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes. At that point, the officer asked, 'Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?'

'Yes,' Thompson (sic) said and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply."

The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict. They said the use of his one-word answer in the trial had violated the defendant's "right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision."

The Supreme Court disagreed and re-instated the conviction. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision saying, "A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings and has not invoked his Miranda rights waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police." I agree.

It's not that the police don't have certain responsibilities before questioning a criminal defendant. They do. And those responsibilities are strict and undeniable. They are:

1. They are responsible for notifying the defendant that he does not have to talk to them, and if he does, anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.

2. They are responsible for notifying the defendant that he has the right to have an attorney with him during any questioning, and if he cannot afford an attorney that one would be appointed to serve that function.

3. They are responsible for making sure that the defendant was not only notified, but fully understands his rights before being questioned.

The police in this case fulfilled all of those responsibilities. That is not questioned in this case. While many police go further and have the defendant sign away his rights (and that is a good idea for their own protection), there is no requirement for them to do so as long as they can prove they met the above responsibilities (such as with an audio or video tape).

The defendant also has a responsibility. If he wishes to invoke his Miranda rights, he must make that known -- the police are not required to be mind readers. All this defendant had to do is make one of two simple statements -- that he either didn't want to speak with the police or that he wanted an attorney to be present. He did neither in this case, even though he had been warned of his rights and fully understood them.

It was proper for the one-word statement to be used against him in court, and the Supreme Court was correct to re-instate his conviction. Frankly, the defendant was tripped up by his own belief in a religious myth, and not by a failure to be properly mirandized.

It's still bothersome though to find myself agreeing with Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. But they happen to be right this time.