View Berghuis V. Thompkins Pictures Pics. Thompkins did not state at any time that he wanted to rely on his right to remain silent, nor that he did not want to talk to the police, nor that he wanted an attorney. Arizona and is aware that they have the right to remain silent.
This article analyzes thompkins's silence, first, using rhetorical silence literature.
Thompkins (2010), for example, the court held that a criminal suspect who has been informed of his right to remain silent must explicitly invoke that right before police are. In the supreme court of the united states. Thompkins (2010) the court ruled that, despite nearly three hours of silence during police interrogation, thompkins's two short utterances constituted a confession, and waived his right to remain silent. Thompkins did not state at any time that he wanted to rely on his right to remain silent, nor that he did not want to talk to the police, nor that he wanted an attorney.
