Citation network
Berghuis Vs. Thompkins
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 2010
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2009 Berghuis V. ThompkinsSearch
-
Decided June 1, 2010 After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
day, and there is no authority for the proposition that a 3-hour interrogation is inherently coercive. Cf. Colorado v. ConnellySearch
-
joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Berghuis v. ThompkinsSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Berghuis V. ThompkinsSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-1470 Mary Berghuis, Warden, Petitioner V. VanSearch
-
that a statement by the accused, relied on at trial by the prosecution, had been elicited in violation of Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
an instruction relating to testimony from an accomplice was ineffective assistance by defense counsel. See Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, requiring police to end the interrogation at once, see Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
F. 3d, at 582 (quoting North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
d)(2). See Knowles v. MirzayanceSearch
-
This argument is unpersuasive. In the context of invoking the Miranda right to counsel, the Court in Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
right to remain silent and the Miranda right to counsel at issue in Davis . See, e.g., Solem v. StumesSearch
-
Fare v. MichaelSearch
-
Dickerson v. UnitedSearch
-
cases to decide the meaning and import of Miranda with respect to the question of waiver was North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
is not more than the burden to establish waiver by a preponderance of the evidence. Colorado v. ConnellySearch
-
at 475. The prosecution must make the additional showing that the accused understood these rights. See Colorado v. SpringSearch
-
Cf. Tague v. LouisianaSearch
-
s cases have recognized that a waiver of Miranda rights need only meet the standard of Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
Id. , at 170 (quoting Oregon v. ElstadSearch
-
d), applies in this situation. Cf. Williams v. TaylorSearch
-
is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions to deny the petition. It is so ordered. Berghuis v. ThompkinsSearch
-
Sotomayor, J., Dissenting Berghuis V. ThompkinsSearch
-
Both propositions mark a substantial retreat from the protection against compelled self-incrimination that Miranda v. ArizonaSearch
-
for the Sixth Circuit, which held that Thompkins was entitled to habeas relief under both Miranda and Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
his right to remain silent, requiring police to cut off questioning in accordance with Miranda and Michigan v. MosleySearch
-
quoting Duckworth v. EaganSearch
-
as a matter of law from whether he invoked that right. Smith v. IllinoisSearch
-
in proving waiver. See, e.g., Tague v. LouisianaSearch
-
s silence or from the mere fact that a confession was eventually obtained. See North Carolina v. ButlerSearch
-
he understood his Miranda rights evinces, if anything, an intent not to waive those rights. Cf. United States v. PlughSearch
-
Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. WoldSearch
-
frequently declined to address questions beyond what is necessary to resolve a case under AEDPA. See, e.g., Tyler v. CainSearch
-
cf. Wiggins v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 510 , 522 (2003) (noting that Williams v. TaylorSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial