Preview

Berghuis Vs Thomkins Summary

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
620 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Berghuis Vs Thomkins Summary
Berghuis v. Thompkins

Procedural History
Van Chester Thompkins was charged with multiple charges. He moved to suppress his statements made during the interrogation. He was found guilty on all charges by a jury of his peers and sentenced to life in prison without parole. His appellate counsel filed a motion for a new trial which was rejected by the trial court. He appealed the ruling to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the trial courts original refusal to suppress his pre-trial statements made during interrogation claiming his Miranda rights were violated. His claims were rejected ruling that he failed to invoke his right to remain silent therefore he waived it. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; they also rejected his claim and upheld the previous court rulings. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the previous rulings for Thompkins regarding the Miranda claim. The court believed that the state court did not reasonably apply clearly established
…show more content…
Before being questioned in a police interview room, he was given a written copy of the Miranda warnings and an officer who determined that he could read English, gave him time to read them. Thompkins was also provided with a supplemental warning that stated he had the right to decide at any time before or during questioning to use his right to remain silent or his right to speak with an attorney during questioning. That being said, the officer did not ask him if he wanted to waive those rights. During the interview, Thompkins did not admit anything and gave limited verbal and non verbal responses. About three hours in, he was asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” He answered, “yes”. This admission was used against him at trial where he was convicted and

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Facts of the Case: The Appellant Miriam Leverington, a nurse at Memorial Hospital (Appellee 1) in Colorado Springs, was pulled over in December of 2008 by Officer Duaine Peters (Appellee 2). During the course of the stop Leverington told the police officer that she hoped he was never her patient. Officer Peters replied, "I hope not too, because maybe I'll call your supervisor and tell her you threatened me." The Police officer did in fact, within 5 days after the incident, report Leverington’s comment to Memorial Hospital. Memorial Hospital took disciplinary action against her for making the comment to the officer. They disciplined her by terminating Leverington from her job as a cardiac nurse there. Leverington sued the City (Memorial) and Officer Peters for violating her rights to free speech. Leverington claimed that the officer had been rude and that she was just trying to communicate she hoped that she never had to interact with him again. Lower courts dismissed her case stating that her first amendment rights had not been violated. The decision went to appeals.…

    • 730 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr. Thomas emerged from the courthouse and said, “I want to say it as loud as I possibly can: I am innocent; I am very innocent. I did not do the things that she accused me in the courtroom of doing.”…

    • 994 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    FACTS: The cases of Mr. Miranda, Mr. Vignera, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Westover had similar cases, regarding the admissibility of their confessions. These cases were then addressed together by the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. Miranda was identified by a witness and arrested, but was not notified of his rights, although he singed a written confession after several hours of interrogation that stated that he was aware of the rights he was not notified about. A jury was presented an oral admission of guilt, as well as the written confession. The jury found Mr. Miranda guilty of murder and rape, and sentenced him to 20-30 years on both counts. Mr. Vignera, who was the second defendant, was arrested for a…

    • 928 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Salinas V Texas

    • 1542 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Upon arriving at the station Salinas was brought into a room where the police would usually conduct interrogations. It was made clear to Salinas that he was free to leave at any time and his Miranda warnings were not read to him. In other words, it was clear that this was a “noncustodial interview.” The interview lasted approximately one hour. For most of the interview Salinas answered the officers questions, but when asked if his shotgun would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder he instead fell silent, “looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, and began to tighten up.”…

    • 1542 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Robinette unsuccessfully tried to suppress marijuana and MDMA found in his vehicle. He then pleads no contest, but was found guilty. Robinette appealed that the search resulted from an unlawful detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment.…

    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    On 12/03/2015 at 1035 hours, Detective John Reynolds with the Great Bend Police Department and myself had Kerry J. Partridge brought over from the Barton County Jail, for an interview. Partridge was taken into the interview room in the Detectives Office, in reference to cases that the Great Bend Police Department and the Barton County Sheriff Office was working. At 1045 hours Detective Reynolds read Partridge his Miranda Warning , and had Partridge sign his initial rights form. Partridge said, yes he would talk with us and understood his rights.…

    • 1283 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    As further reiterated, “Confessions remain a proper element in law enforcement. Any statement given freely and voluntarily without any compelling influences is, of course, admissible in evidence.” Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment does not bar voluntary statements by definition. The Fifth Amendment explicitly states “No person shall…be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The issue here was whether or not the conversation was in fact an interrogation based on the subdivision called the “functional equivalent” of questioning, described as ‘any words or actions on the part of the police that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect’. The court found that the conversation did not fall within the Miranda meaning of “interrogation” because it was concluded as being nothing more than a dialogue between the two officers, which invited no response from the respondent, and was clearly not a questioning initiated by officers. Furthermore, the conversation also was found not to fall under the description of “functional equivalent” because the few ‘offhand’ remarks that the officers made to one another in no way subjected the respondent to elicit a statement of admission, nor were the officers’ actions subjecting the respondent. Consequently, the respondent was found to have given a confession in a voluntary manner and that his Fifth Amendment rights were not deprived because he was not compelled or forced in any way to…

    • 832 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Inmate Gonzalez Meeting

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Inmate Gonzalez was read his rights from an MCSO issued Miranda Rights warnings card. I asked Inmate Gonzalez if he understood his right and he replied, “Yes.” I then asked if he would voluntarily answer my questions and he said, “Yes”. I asked him if he knew what I found, He stated, “Yes, a shank.” I asked Inmate Gonzalez if the shank was his and he said, “No.” I asked Inmate Gonzalez who owned the shank. Inmate Gonzalez said, “Check the cameras and you’ll see who it belonged too.” I asked Inmate Gonzalez who made the shank, and he replied, “It’s not mine, I didn’t have anything to do with it.” I asked Inmate Gonzalez if the shank belonged to his cellmate (Inmate Quintero). Inmate Gonzalez refused to answer the question. I asked Inmate Gonzalez what the shank was intended to be used for. Inmate Gonzalez refused to answer any more…

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Virginia vs Moore

    • 470 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Circuit Court of Portsmouth denied the motion to suppress the drug evidence and found Moore guilty. He was given a five year prison sentence. This conviction was overturned by the Virginia Court of Appeals which invoked Virginia’s statutory arrest rules. The search was unconstitutional because the Code made clear that, absent additional facts, the detectives were required to issue appellant summons for the misdemeanor offense of driving on a suspended license.…

    • 470 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    USpreme Court Case Study

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advised that is was not the practice in the county for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He was founded guilty by the judge, sitting without jury, and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Betts argued that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violations of the 14th Amendments. Betts was denied any relief, and on review this Court let the lower court-ruling…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Thomkins Research Paper

    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page

    On January 10, 2000, two people got shot on the outside of a shopping mall; one person was killed and another wounded. Thompkins was convicted of murder and firearms related charges in Michigan state trial court. Thompkins was arrested one year later, the police officers had him to read a written form with the Miranda Warnings and the officer read the rest of the form to Thompkins. The police officer asks Thompkins to sign the form to show that he understood his right and he refused. The officers interrogated Thompkins for nearly three hours, Thimpkins responses the police officers with “yes”, “no” or “I don’t know”. Thimpkins didn’t state that he wished to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to stay silent. Later, an officer asked Thompkins if…

    • 201 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Mr. Miranda appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Arizona. The Supreme Court of Arizona found that Mr. Miranda was fully aware of his constitutional rights, and his conviction was affirmed. Mr. Miranda appealed the Supreme Court of Arizona’s decision to the United States Supreme Court.…

    • 765 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Arizona vs Miranda

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Miranda was not given a full and effective warning of his rights. He was not told of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Miranda was found guilty of kidnaping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. During the prosecution, Miranda’s court-appointed lawyer, Alvin Moore, objected that because of these facts, the confession was not truly voluntary and should be excluded. In the end of 1966, The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda's confession as evidence in a criminal trial because the police had failed to first informs Miranda of his right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court of Arizona detailed the principles governing police interrogation. Arizona ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination.…

    • 299 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Atticus Finch , the lawyer that helped Tom Robinson in his case, made a closing statement before the jury were on there way to see if Tom should be pointed guilty or not guilty,” The state has not produced one iota of medical evidence to the effect that the crime Tom Robinson is charged with ever took place. It has relied instead upon the testimony of two witnesses whose evidence has not only been called into serious question to cross-examination, but has…

    • 566 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda V. Arizona

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The first court ruling where Miranda was found guilty to armed robbery was thrown out after his case was and brought up to the Supreme Court. In a ruling issued in 1966, the court established that the accused have the right to remain silent and that prosecutors may not use statements made by defendants while in police custody unless the police have informed them of their rights, which are now called Miranda Rights. Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights while in custody, therefore any confessions he made could not be used against him in court. At the Supreme Court level, the conviction was overthrown because he was not informed of his right against self incrimination and his right to remain silent. The case was later re-tried without using his confessions in the trial. Miranda was convicted on the basis of other evidence, and served 11 years for armed robbery. Although Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping, he could not be prosecuted for it because there was not enough evidence to show he was the offender in those crimes once his confession was thrown out. Chief justice, Earl Warren established the…

    • 649 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays