Constitutional Law,
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun. 16, 2010
Silencing Miranda
In Berguis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court has taken a major step to lessening the Constitution's protection against self-incrimination, writes Erwin Chemerinksy of UCI Law.
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law
UC Berkeley School of Law
Erwin's most recent book is "Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism." He is also the author of "Closing the Courthouse," (Yale University Press 2017).
By Erwin Chemerinsky
In Berguis v. Thompkins, 2010 DJDAR 8047, the Supreme Court took a major step to lessening the Constitution's protection against self-incrimination.The Supreme Court held that a criminal suspect's silence, even for a period of hours, is not enough to invoke the right to remain silent. Even a single word after hours of silence is enough to waive this right.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In