In 2000, conservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist reaffirmed the so-called Miranda rights when he wrote that, "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become a part of our national culture."

Though the concept of Miranda rights are less than 50 years old, their influence on the American justice system has been profound. Given their high-profile placement in media, the vast majority of adult Americans understand that if arrested, they have the right to remain silent and that anything they say may be used against them in a court of law.

However, understanding the right and understanding the proper way to invoke the right is not the same thing. This is a critical distinction, as evidenced by the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Berghuis v. Thompkins.

As the Supreme Court made clear, merely remaining silent for an extended period of time is not sufficient to invoke the right to remain silent. Instead, a suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent.

The Thompkins Case

Van Chester Thompkins was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. After he was read his Miranda rights, he was given a form and told to sign the form as an indication that he understood his Miranda rights. Thompkins refused to sign the form.

Police questioned him for nearly three hours. Throughout the questioning, Thompkins remained essentially silent, stating only that his chair was hard and that he did not want a peppermint.

After several hours though, when the officers asked Thompkins whether he believed in God, he answer affirmatively. When they asked whether he prayed, he again answered affirmatively. Finally, when they asked whether he prayed for forgiveness for "shooting that boy down," he again answered affirmatively.

Prosecutors used Thompkins' monosyllabic affirmations to convict him of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Thompkins filed an appeal, alleging that police had violated his Miranda rights by continuing to question him for hours while he remained silent during a coercively long interrogation. A federal appeals court threw out his conviction because prosecutors could not prove that Thompkins had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.

The Supreme Court struck down the appeals court ruling. The Court held that "a suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings, and has not invoked his Miranda rights, waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to police."

Future Considerations

The Court provided little guidance in determining how lower courts should decide whether a suspect has "understood" the Miranda rights. In this case, Thompkins refused to sign the form indicating that he understood his rights but he behaved as if he understood his rights by maintaining silence through hours of interrogation.

The Court also did not explain what constitutes an "uncoerced" statement; this may well become a point of future debate in lower courts.

Civil rights groups insist that this holding is a prime example of how the modern Court is failing to recognize the effects of the law on the American people. It is unclear how average Americans, let alone Americans with developmental disabilities, non-English speaking Americans, illiterate Americans and other vulnerable populations are going to be informed of this new requirement to explicitly invoke the right to remain silent.

Justice Sotomayor, who penned a dissent joined by three other Justices, noted that the "decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent - which, counter intuitively, requires them to speak."

For anyone accused of a crime, it is important to understand and exercise the right to remain silent. Before speaking to the police, invoke the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney, and speak to a knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer.