Berghuis v. Thompkins: The Continued Erosion of Miranda's Protections

Michael L. Vander Giessen

Gonzaga University


Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2011

In the forty-four years since the Supreme Court of the United States decided Miranda v. Arizona, the “procedural safeguards” set forth in that case have become ingrained in American law enforcement practices. However, subsequent Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying Miranda have weakened its impact, causing some to question its significance and efficacy as a tool protecting suspects’ privilege against self-incrimination. The Court’s decision in Berghuis v. Thompkins continues this emasculating trend, first, by expressly heightening the standard necessary for suspects to invoke the right to remain silent and, second, by implicitly lowering the standard necessary to establish waiver. This comment focuses on how the Court reached its decision, what the Court ought to have decided, what negative impacts Berghuis may have on the American criminal justice system, and how those negative impacts may be limited.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 26

Keywords: Miranda, Berghuis v. Thompkins, privilege against self-incrimination, right to remain silent

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: January 9, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Vander Giessen, Michael L., Berghuis v. Thompkins: The Continued Erosion of Miranda's Protections (2011). Gonzaga Law Review, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1981790

Contact Information

Michael L. Vander Giessen (Contact Author)
Gonzaga University
Spokane, WA 99258
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,011
Downloads: 139
Download Rank: 165,556