WAIT, WE'RE REVERTING TO WHAT THE LAW SAYS?:

Court weighs if silence alone can invoke Miranda (JESSE J. HOLLAND, 3/02/10, Associated Press)

After two and a half hours of interrogation, Thompkins answered three questions, said Justice Stephen Breyer: "One, do you believe in God? Yes. Two, do you pray to God? Yes. Three, have you asked God for forgiveness for shooting the boy? Yes.

"OK," Breyer said. "So, where did he waive it?"

"When he answered those questions," Restuccia said.

Thompkins' lawyer, Elizabeth Jacobs, told the justices they should say that police should stop all interrogation if they don't get the suspect to say that he wants to talk. If they don't, police will keep suspects in interrogation rooms and badger them until they talk, she said.

But what, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, if a police officer asked a suspect if he wants to remain silent, and he doesn't say anything?

"Then he is not cooperating, he is not waiving his rights, it's not voluntary. Take him back to the cell, that's it," she said.

"What you are saying then," asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg," is the defendant never has to invoke his right?"

"There is no clearly established law that says that he has to assert his right to remain silent," Jacobs said.

There's no law giving you a right to remain silent in the first place.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2010 7:30 AM