In Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of several crimes but then stated that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when the police were obtaining his confession, and he was not provided effective counsel at trial. After the Sixth Circuit held that the defendant’s rights were indeed violated, a question arose before the Supreme Court about the fairness of this decision. Overall, it is possible to suggest that the Sixth Circuit improperly expanded the Miranda rule in their judgment in this case, and there are several reasons for that.
To begin with, though the defendant was not responding to the detectives’ questions, he did not clearly state his intention to remain silent. Therefore, the detectives’ continuation of the interrogation was justified and allowed them to finally receive an answer when Thompkins “knowingly and voluntarily” made a statement to the police” (Berghuis v. Thompkins, n.d., para. 5). Furthermore, if the defendant was indeed denied effective counsel at trial, he should have indicated that earlier and not after the trial.
Next, since it is impossible to prove the counselor’s fault in the fact that a limiting instruction was not requested and possible violations of the Fifth Amendment were indicated, stating that Thompkins was prejudiced by his mistake and ineffectiveness is incorrect. Therefore, it is possible to conclude that, when holding that the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated, the Sixth Circuit improperly expanded the Miranda rule. Finally, since there was substantial evidence of Thompkins’s guilt, including his statement to the police and other evidence, the Sixth Circuit should not have granted habeas corpus relief (Berghuis v. Thompkins, n.d). Instead, it should have given the Supreme Court deference and ruled that Miranda rights were provided to the defendant, and the initial judgment was justified.
Reference
Berghuis v. Thompkins. (n.d.). Oyez. Web.