The Supreme Court is once again trying to clarify what the long-established Miranda rights require the police to do, with the justices on Wednesday agreeing to decide whether officers can interrogate a suspect who said he understood his rights but didn’t invoke them.
The high court agreed to hear an appeal from Michigan prosecutors who had their conviction of Van Chester Thompkins thrown out by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because police kept talking to Thompkins after reading him his rights—despite Thompkins not verbally agreeing to invoke or withdraw his Miranda rights.
Thompkins was arrested for murder in 2001 and interrogated by police for three hours. At the beginning, Thompkins was read his Miranda rights and said he understood.
The officers in the room said Thompkins said little during the interrogation, occasionally answering “yes,” “no,” “I don’t know,” nodding his head and making eye contact as his responses. But when one of the officers asked him if he prayed for forgiveness for “shooting that boy down,” Thompkins said, “Yes.”
He was convicted, but on appeal he wanted that statement thrown out because he said he invoked his Miranda rights by being uncommunicative with the interrogating officers.
The Cincinnati-based appeals court agreed and threw out his confession and conviction.
“Thompkins’ persistent silence for nearly three hours in response to questioning and repeated invitations to tell his side of the story offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers: Thompkins did not wish to wave his rights,” the court said.
Michigan prosecutors said that would be a new addition to Miranda rights, and they want the Supreme Court to reinstate Thompkins’ conviction.
[More]
Would that Canadians had reasonable protections in this respect. Canadians have no explicit right to silence (yes, I know, we cannot be compelled to testify against ourselves but that is not the same thing), and Canadians have no right to have a lawyer present during questioning, and even if a suspect chooses to remain silent whoever is in the interrogation room can badger them to no end in the hopes of some slip-up (real or perceived) even if they have committed no crime.
Folks, don’t let stageleft blow smoke up your keisters.
Canada doesn’t have the popular “You have the right to remain silent” enshrined in our lexicon but the same type of warning must be given if we wish to enter any conversation in evidence. The only exceptions are a blurted confession and a dying confession. The first would result in a warning being given to attempt to secure the same kind of evidence after being warned. The second doesn’t have that opportunity.
The wording of warnings used varies from police agency to police agency. The RCMP version is “You need not say anything. Anything you do say will be recorded and can be used as evidence in a court of law.” but we often follow that up with the popular jargon since that’s the expression with which most folks are familiar. Those of us who’ve been around the block ask the person we’re interviewing questions to ensure they understand their rights.
The emotionally charged image of a sweating suspect sitting in a darkened room with a single light glaring while two officers play “good cop, bad cop” makes for great theatre fare but it’s not factual. In Canada, if an investigator wants to interview a suspect about a serious crime, the entire interview will be recorded on video from start to finish to ensure there were no improprieties…. no threats, no inducements, no badgering. To do so would be folly on the part of the cops since the video will be played, in it’s entirety, at trial…
stageleft is somewhat right in that there is no legislated “right” to have a lawyer present but when someone requests to exercise their right to contact counsel, that typically means the interview ends until the suspect satisfies that right. Imagine putting into evidence a video of police refusing to allow a suspect exercise his rights… Does that sounds like it would help the chances of conviction to you?
In the case of young offenders, they do have the right to have counsel present and that counsel can be a lawyer, parent or guardian or even an adult of their choosing. In addition to regular warnings, RCMP has a comprehensive form explaining all rights to the youth.
For some reason, people get all hung up about confessions or admissions. Defence lawyers love that… which is why the evidence is strongest are always tried before a jury. A judge won’t (or shouldn’t) get caught in the trap of believing any single piece of evidence is the crux of the case. Juries are easier to fool. After all, “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit!”
If a criminal case in Canada was submitted based solely on confessions or admissions from the perpetrator, the case would never see trial. Chances are the confession is the icing on a large body of evidence which existed prior to the arrest and interview.
Sorry to rain on your parade, stageleft… just keeping it real…
@Mac: Blowing smoke? Do I have to mention you that you are the one who brought up the whole emotionally charged image of a sweating suspect sitting in a darkened room with a single light glaring while two officers play “good cop, bad cop” scenery?
– I said nothing of the sort although I can, quite frankly, understand how you, as a member of the brotherhood, feel the need to try and discredit what I did say the way you did.
Lets look at a couple of other things you said in that regard.
Mac: “…if an investigator wants to interview a suspect about a serious crime, the entire interview will be recorded on video from start to finish….”
But that is not all crimes is it Mac? And I can tell you that there are a great many detachment offices in Canada that are not set up for that at all, I bet you know that to. And how do you define serious? A murder suspect? An arson suspect in an office tower burning? An arson suspect in a country shed burning on Halloween night? A car theft suspect? A bicycle theft suspect? A teen-ager suspected of shop lifting?
Mac: “stageleft is somewhat right in that there is no legislated “right” to have a lawyer present….”
No Mac, stageleft is not “somewhat right”, stageleft is “right”, Canadians have no right to have a lawyer present during questioning or interrogation – that is just a simple fact.
– and stageleft is also right that there is nothing to prevent the police from tossing questions at a suspect left right and centre in the hope of confusing them into some sort of admission when that person has no lawyer present isn’t he?
Your defence of the force is admirable (and expected), but the rights that Canadians do and do not have in this respect, verses the rights that Americans have, are quite clear.
Speaking of discredit, would you describe your reference to myself as being a member of a supposed “brotherhood” as being an attempt to foster truth on my behalf? I used the “good cop, bad cop” image only to dismiss as being a false one created by Hollyweird. I didn’t claim you’d conjured or used the image.
Now let’s take a look at your critiques…
Are there still police detachments that don’t have audio/video recording in their interview rooms? I expect so but they’re the exception, not the norm. So? If a serious crime took place and interviews were needed, video cameras are cheap and readily available. For most cases, a video camera is unnecessary.
Audio/video recording is not done on all interviews. There is no need to do so. Simply put, the value of the evidence to be gained in many interviews for less serious offences isn’t worth the time, cost or effort to record. It’s only an interview; one piece of evidence in a minor case. In serious matters, the stakes are higher and justify making recordings, as police don’t want to lose any of the evidence.
While it would be lovely and charming to imagine the police carrying a video camera to record each time they talk to a citizen, can you imagine the equipment cost and logistical nightmare of dealing with that many recordings? From a civil libertarian perspective, the concept of police recording everything is another nightmare…
What does it matter how I define serious? Can you justify spending $5000 to record an interview of a suspect in a $1 shoplifting case? You want my definition of serious so you can dismiss it. I’m going to save you the bother and not play along.
Stageleft remains somewhat right since, as I mentioned, young offenders do have the right to have counsel present. Adults do not have that same right in legislation.
Stageleft is also producing a strawman since I never said anything about police throwing questions at a suspect trying to shock out an admission. I’m sure some inexperienced interviewers try those types of Hollyweird tactics but I would be very surprised if they were effective. The best interviewers are low-key, polite and nonjudgmental throughout their interaction with the suspect.
I wrote what I did as a reality check to remind the good folks who read Jack’s Newswatch that police aren’t scheming to throw innocents in jail.