Asked by Allie Luker on Jun 30, 2024
Verified
In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that absent an explicit invocation of the right to remain silent, police may continue to interrogate a suspect, and what the suspect says may be used against him in court.
Berghuis v. Thompkins
A 2010 Supreme Court case that held that remaining silent without a prior explicit invocation of Miranda rights does not constitute an invocation of the right to silence.
Right to Remain Silent
A legal principle that safeguards individuals from being compelled to incriminate themselves during a legal process.
- Comprehend the methodologies and juridical criteria utilized in the conduct of criminal probes and legal proceedings.
Verified Answer
DF
David FeynbergJul 02, 2024
Final Answer :
True
Explanation :
In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a suspect must explicitly invoke their right to remain silent for the protection to apply. If the suspect does not clearly state that they are invoking this right, police are allowed to continue questioning, and any voluntary responses can be used in court.
Learning Objectives
- Comprehend the methodologies and juridical criteria utilized in the conduct of criminal probes and legal proceedings.