SILENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN ONE WISHES TO REMAIN SILENT

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the denial of a Miranda challenge in Berghuis v. Thompkins. In this decision, the Court held that a Defendant's remaining silent during virtually his entire interrogation did not constitute a valid invocation of his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights; the Defendant, towards the end of the interrogation, stated that he wanted God to forgive him for the shooting and had sought to have this statement excluded.

In so holding, the Court re-affirmed that Miranda invocations must be unambiguous. To hold otherwise, the Court reasoned, would not provide an objective standard for determining when Miranda rights have been invoked. Accordingly, a Defendant must assert his rights in a way that is clear and unambiguous.

MIRANDA INVOCATIONS ONLY LAST FOR 14 DAYS

The Court has held that a Miranda invocation will only remain in effect for 14 days. In Maryland v. Shatzer, the Court held that an inmate's invocation of Miranda did not carry over to a subsequent interrogation that occurred two years later.

This ruling, which came without dissent, is understandable given that a span of two years occurred between interrogations.

LANGUAGE OF A MIRANDA WARNING MAY BE VARIED

The Court has held that a Defendant's Miranda rights may be protected even if the traditional warning is not employed by officers. In Florida v. Powell, the Court upheld the use of a warning that did not track the traditionally employed language. This ruling was based on the fact that the Defendant was adequately informed of his rights by the warning that was used.

This ruling is understandable given that Miranda stresses that a Defendant be informed of certain rights and does not stress a particular form for doing so.