The case in one breath Van Chester Thompkins sat through almost three hours of police questioning about a deadly shooting and said next to nothing. He never said he wanted to stay silent. He never asked for a lawyer. Then a detective asked whether he prayed to God to forgive him for shooting that boy down — and he answered “Yes.” In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the one word could be used against him. Two rules came out of it. To invokeInvoke: to actually use a right — to switch it on. For the right to remain silent, that takes clear words. your right to remain silent, you have to say so clearly — sitting there quietly doesn’t do it. And if you understood your Miranda warnings and answer a question anyway, that answer can count as a waiverWaiver: giving up a right you have. It doesn’t take a signature — an uncoerced answer from someone who understood the warnings can be enough. of the right. The strange-but-true lesson: to stay silent, you first have to speak.
Decided
June 1, 2010
Vote
5–4
Opinion by
Justice Kennedy
Sets
How you invoke your silence
The Story Behind Berghuis v. Thompkins
It started with gunfire outside a Michigan mall — and came down to one word, spoken in a small room in Ohio.JAN 10, 2000A shooting outside a mall in Southfield, Michigan. Samuel Morris dies of multiple gunshot wounds; Frederick France is wounded and survives. The suspect, Van Chester Thompkins, flees. About a year later he is found in Ohio and arrested.
THE ROOMTwo Southfield officers travel to Ohio. Around 1:30 p.m., in a room 8 feet by 10, Detective Helgert hands Thompkins a form listing his Miranda rights. Thompkins reads the last one out loud — the one saying he can use his rights at any time during questioning — and Helgert reads him the rest. Asked to sign the form, Thompkins declines.
THE SILENCEFor about 2 hours and 45 minutes, Thompkins is largely silent. A few answers like “yeah,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” A nod here and there. A remark that his chair is hard. The detective later called the session “nearly a monologue.” What Thompkins never says: that he wants to remain silent, that he doesn’t want to talk, or that he wants a lawyer.
THREE QUESTIONSThen Helgert changes direction. “Do you believe in God?” Thompkins makes eye contact, his eyes filling with tears: “Yes.” “Do you pray to God?” “Yes.” “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins answers “Yes” — and looks away. He refuses to write a confession. About 15 minutes later, it’s over.
THE COURTSA Michigan judge refuses to throw the statement out. A jury convicts Thompkins of first-degree murder and other charges; he gets life without parole. Michigan’s appeals court upholds it. So Thompkins files a habeas corpus petition in federal court, asking it to review his imprisonment. The first federal court says no. In 2008 the Sixth Circuit says yes: nearly three hours of silence sent a clear message that he did not want to give up his rights.
JUN 1, 2010The Supreme Court reverses, 5–4. Silence did not invoke the right. The “Yes” waived it. The conviction stands.
The Question the Court Faced in Berghuis v. Thompkins
Miranda says that if a suspect indicates he wants to remain silent, the questioning has to stop — and that the government carries a heavy burden to prove a suspect gave his rights up. But Thompkins never said “I’m not talking,” and he never said “I’ll talk.” He sat there, and then he answered. Two questions in one: does staying quiet for hours count as using the right to remain silent? And if it doesn’t, can a one-word answer — no signed form, no “I waive my rights” — count as giving the right up?
What the Court Decided in Berghuis v. Thompkins
No to the first, yes to the second:“In sum, 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 the police.”— Justice Kennedy, for the Court
On invoking. The Court borrowed a rule from Davis v. United States (1994). There, a suspect said, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,” and the Court held that a request for a lawyer has to be unambiguous — police don’t have to stop for a “maybe.” Justice Kennedy saw “no principled reason to adopt different standards” for the right to remain silent. A clear rule tells officers when they must stop instead of making them guess.
“Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk with the police. Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning.'”— on what would have ended the interrogation
On waiving. A waiver doesn’t have to be signed or said out loud. If the prosecution shows the warnings were given and understood, an uncoerced statement is an implied waiver. Thompkins got the warnings in writing and read one aloud. He didn’t claim anyone threatened or hurt him, and the Court said three hours of questioning isn’t coercive just because of its length. One more rule: after giving the warnings, police may question a suspect who has neither invoked nor waived his rights. They don’t need a “yes, I’ll talk” first. One technical note: this was a federal habeas case, so a 1996 law called AEDPA applied — federal courts can set aside a state court’s ruling only when it was unreasonable. The majority said Michigan’s courts weren’t just reasonable. They were right. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Her closing lines: “Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down. Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak.” She argued that police can simply ask an unclear suspect what he means.
What Berghuis v. Thompkins Means for You
✓ BECAUSE OF THOMPKINS
- Staying quiet doesn’t switch on your right to remain silent — you have to say it
- Clear words work: say you want to remain silent, or that you don’t want to talk, and police must stop questioning
- After the warnings, police can keep asking until you clearly invoke — no signed waiver needed first (Thompkins refused to sign, and it didn’t matter)
- If you understood the warnings and answer anyway — even one word, hours in — that answer can be used in court
✗ THOMPKINS DOESN’T MEAN
- Miranda is gone — police still have to give the warnings before questioning someone in custody
- Prosecutors get a free pass — they still must prove you got the warnings, understood them, and weren’t coerced
- Threats or force are fine — there was no claim of threats, injury, or fear here
- You need magic legal words — “simple, unambiguous statements” in plain English count
- You have to answer — the right is still yours; this case is about how you turn it on
If it’s ever you in that room: say it out loud, early, in plain words: “I am going to remain silent. I want a lawyer.” No “maybe,” no “I think.” Then do the hard part and actually stop talking. No small talk, no nods, no one-word answers; Thompkins’s “Yes” came almost three hours in. Stay calm, don’t lie, don’t physically resist, and repeat the two sentences if the questions keep coming. If you’re under 18, add: “I want my parents called.” Our guide on when police have to read you your rights covers the rest.
Questions People Ask About Berghuis v. Thompkins
What exactly do I have to say to invoke my right to remain silent?
The Court gave its own examples: tell the police you want to remain silent, or that you don’t want to talk with them. Either one would have ended Thompkins’s interrogation. What doesn’t work: hinting, hedging, or going quiet and hoping officers take the point. Asking for a lawyer is a separate right with the same rule — it has to be clear — and once it is, questioning is supposed to stop until a lawyer is present. That’s why the safest script uses both sentences.
If I already answered a few questions, is it too late to stop?
No. The Court said a suspect can invoke at any time and end the interrogation — even after an earlier waiver. What you already said doesn’t get erased, though. So the moment you realize you should stop, say the two sentences and stop.
Was the detective allowed to bring up God?
According to the majority, yes. A question touching Thompkins’s religious beliefs did not make his answer involuntary, the Court said: the Fifth Amendment is aimed at coercion by officials, not moral or psychological pressure from other sources. Police get real room for psychological tactics — in Frazier v. Cupp, a false claim that a co-suspect had confessed wasn’t enough to get a confession thrown out. More: can police lie to you during questioning?
Does this rule apply to teenagers?
The opinion says nothing special about young suspects, so the speak-up rule is the starting point for everyone. Two things still help. The prosecution has to show the warnings were actually understood, not just recited. And J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) held that a child’s age counts in deciding whether they’re in custody at all. Some states go further: California law requires anyone 17 or younger to consult with a lawyer before a custodial interrogation and before waiving Miranda rights — and that consultation can’t be waived.
What happened to Van Chester Thompkins?
He lost. The Supreme Court sent the case back with instructions to deny his habeas petition, leaving his conviction and life-without-parole sentence in place. The Court also rejected a second claim, about a jury instruction his trial lawyer never requested, pointing to the other evidence: the surviving victim identified him as the shooter, and a friend testified that Thompkins had confessed to him.
Key Terms in Berghuis v. Thompkins, Explained
Invoke — to actually use a right. After Thompkins, that takes clear words, not silence.
Waiver — giving up a right. It must be knowing and voluntary, but it needn’t be signed or spoken.
Implied waiver — a waiver shown by conduct: you understood the warnings, weren’t coerced, and answered anyway.
Custodial interrogation — police questioning of someone in custody; the situation where Miranda warnings are required.
Habeas corpus — a petition asking a federal court to review whether a person’s imprisonment violates the Constitution.
AEDPA — the 1996 law that makes federal courts defer to state-court rulings in habeas cases unless they were unreasonable.
Cases Connected to Berghuis v. Thompkins
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)The source of the warnings. Miranda gave you the right to cut off questioning; Thompkins decided what it takes to use it.Read the full case → J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011)One year later, with Justice Sotomayor writing for the majority this time: a child’s age matters in deciding whether they’re in custody.Read the full case → Vega v. Tekoh (2022)Another limit: a violation of the Miranda rules, by itself, doesn’t let you sue the officer under federal civil rights law.Read the full case → Frazier v. Cupp (1969)Police told a suspect his cousin had confessed when he hadn’t — and the Court still let the confession in.Read the full case →Davis v. United States (1994)The rule Thompkins borrowed: “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was too unclear to count as asking for one.
Salinas v. Texas (2013)The sequel outside custody: a man answering police questions voluntarily, with no warnings, went quiet at one question. Three justices said that didn’t invoke the Fifth Amendment — and cited Thompkins.
What’s Still Undecided After Berghuis v. Thompkins
Thompkins set the rule, but its edges are still being worked out as of October 2026:
- What counts as “unambiguous” — the Court gave two examples of words that work. Real people say things in between, like “I think I’m done.” Lower courts sort those out one sentence at a time.
- Silence before any warnings — in Salinas the Court took up whether prosecutors can use it against you when you claim the Fifth Amendment in a voluntary, non-custody police interview — then decided the case without answering. No single opinion spoke for a majority.
- Young suspects — the Supreme Court has not said whether the speak-up rule works differently for kids. States are answering with laws like California’s, so protections depend on where you live.
Why this page exists: almost everyone can recite “you have the right to remain silent.” Almost no one is told the right only switches on when you say so. It’s a rule you want to learn from a page, not in a small room. Every fact above comes from the Court’s own opinion — linked below so you can check us.
The Bottom Line on Berghuis v. Thompkins
Nearly three hours of quiet, three questions about God, and one “Yes” produced the rule that surprises people most about Miranda: the right to remain silent doesn’t protect you just because you’re being silent. You have to claim it out loud, and if you answer instead, the answer can be the waiver. The warnings are still required, coercion is still off limits, and you can stop the questions at any moment — with words. Say you’re remaining silent. Say you want a lawyer. Then mean it. Now you know.Your practical guideDo police have to read you your rights? → Where it startedMiranda v. Arizona → More casesBrowse all court case files →
Sources
Primary sources:- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) — full opinion — supreme.justia.com
- Berghuis v. Thompkins — argument audio and case summary — oyez.org
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) — supreme.justia.com
- Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. 178 (2013) — supreme.justia.com
- California Department of Justice bulletin on youth interrogations (2023) — oag.ca.gov
LawJustic is for educational purposes only and does not provide legal advice. Laws vary by state and situation. If you need help with a specific legal issue, contact a licensed attorney.