Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Berghuis v. Thompkins

Supreme Court of the United States · 2010 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureMirandaRight to Remain SilentWaiverIneffective Assistance of CounselHabeas CorpusAEDPAMiranda

Facts

Police interrogated Thompkins in custody for about three hours after giving him full Miranda warnings in written and oral form. Thompkins refused to sign the form, was largely silent, gave only occasional limited responses, and never said that he wanted to remain silent, did not want to talk, or wanted a lawyer. Near the end of the interrogation, after being asked whether he prayed to God to forgive him for shooting the victim, Thompkins answered yes. At trial that statement was used against him, and he was convicted; he also later argued that counsel was ineffective for not requesting a limiting instruction about the outcome of accomplice Purifoy's earlier trial.

Issue

Whether Thompkins invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining largely silent during interrogation, whether he waived that right by eventually making an uncoerced inculpatory statement after receiving and understanding Miranda warnings, and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to request a limiting instruction regarding the outcome of Purifoy's trial.

Rule

A suspect must unambiguously invoke the Miranda right to remain silent; mere silence during interrogation is not enough. If a suspect receives and understands Miranda warnings, does not invoke those rights, and then makes an uncoerced statement to police, that statement can establish an implied waiver of the right to remain silent. Police are not required to obtain a waiver before beginning interrogation so long as proper warnings were given and the suspect had the opportunity to invoke the rights. On the ineffective-assistance claim, prejudice under Strickland requires a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result would have been different, assessed in light of the totality of the evidence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, detectives arrested Nina Alvarez for armed robbery and gave her full Miranda warnings from a printed card. Nina said she understood, then stared at the table and refused to answer questions for 90 minutes, except to ask once for water; she never said she wanted to stop the interview or remain silent. Near the end, she answered, "I drove the car."

Is Nina's statement most likely admissible?

Explanation. The majority held that invocation of the Miranda right to remain silent must be unambiguous. Mere silence, even prolonged silence, is not enough. If the suspect received and understood Miranda warnings, did not clearly invoke the right, and later made an uncoerced statement, that statement may establish an implied waiver.