In this case, after agreeing to hear the case (known as granting certiorari) the United States Supreme Court held that detectives interrogating Thompkins did not violate Thompkins’ Miranda rights in obtaining his confession. Read the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins. You may also find it helpful to listen to the oral arguments the lawyers made before the United States Supreme Court. If your last name begins with M through Z (this is me) you must argue against the majority’s decision and in favor of the dissent. The dissent argued that Thompkins’ confession was illegally obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. If your opinion varies from the position you are being required to take, you may include such a statement in your discussion post.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Berghuis v Thompkins After the interrogating police reminded Thompkins for his right to keep on bein... View the full answer