Access Millions of academic & study documents

Thompkins

Content type
User Generated
Subject
Business Law
School
Post University
Type
Homework
Showing Page:
1/4
Running head: BERGHUIS V THOMPKINS 1
Berghuis v Thompkins
Student’s Name
Course Code and Number
Institutional Affiliation
Date of Submission

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/4
BERGHUIS V THOMPKINS 2
Berghuis v Thompkins
Van Chester Thompkins was condemned by a Michigan federal Court for first-degree
homicide assault with the intention of killing, and also held accountable based on various
firearms-connected charges. After draining his remedies in the state court, he appealed for
habeas corpus relief in the Michigan state court (Mallor & Barnes, 2020) His appeal was denied
by the federal court. On the petition, Thompkins claimed that his declaration was got through the
abuse of the 5th Amendment and he was deprived of effective counsel at the hearing. The 6th
circuit alleged that the Michigan Court verdict that Thompkins relinquished his 5th Amendment
rights was irrational since he declined to sign an acknowledgment that he has been conversant of
his Miranda rights and he seldom met the eyes of the detectives during the interrogation that
lasted 3 hours (Stansbury, 2010). The 6th circuit similarly alleged that the Supreme Court
incorrectly resolute that Thompkins was not biased by his warning’s failure to ask for a
restrictive instruction linked to his distinctly tried testimony of his co-defendant.
In the Thompkins v. Berghuis case, the problem before the Michigan Supreme Court was
to determine how and when a suspect must correctly invoke his constitutional rights to remain
silent. The court established that a request of the 5th Amendment right to remain silent must be
explicit and cannot be inertly attained. In the Michigan Supreme Court, Thompkins v.Berghuis a
majority of the court further curtailed a person’s right to silence according to the 5th Amendment
by requiring the suspect to articulately and fully state the exercise of his right to remain
silent(Stansbury,2010). The United States court held that the police interrogating Thompkins did
not violate his Mirada rights in obtaining his confession by arguing that Mr. Thompkins failed to
counsel and invoke his Miranda rights of remaining silent since he failed to do so explicitly. He
relinquished his Miranda rights when he voluntarily and knowingly made a statement to the

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/4

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 4 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Running head: BERGHUIS V THOMPKINS Berghuis v Thompkins Student’s Name Course Code and Number Institutional Affiliation Date of Submission 1 2 BERGHUIS V THOMPKINS Berghuis v Thompkins Van Chester Thompkins was condemned by a Michigan federal Court for first-degree homicide assault with the intention of killing, and also held accountable based on various firearms-connected charges. After draining his remedies in the state court, he appealed for habeas corpus relief in the Michigan state court (Mallor & Barnes, 2020) His appeal was denied by the federal court. On the petition, Thompkins claimed that his declaration was got through the abuse of the 5th Amendment and he was deprived of effective counsel at the hearing. The 6th circuit alleged that the Michigan Court verdict that Thompkins relinquished his 5th Amendment rights was irrational since he declined to sign an acknowledgment that he has been conversant of his Miranda rights and he seldom met the eyes of the detectives during the interrogation that lasted 3 hours (Stansbury, 2010). The 6th circuit similarly alleged that the Supreme Court incorrectly resolute that Thompkins was not biased by his warning’s failure to a ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4