Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

BERGHUIS v. THOMPKINS

Docket No.: 08-1470
Certiorari Granted: Sep 30 2009
Argued: March 1, 2010
Decided: June 1, 2010

Topics:

Miranda warnings, Death Penalty, Fifth Amendment, Miranda, habeas, habeas corpus, ineffective assistance of counsel, murder, self-incrimination

PartyNames: Mary Berghuis, Warden v. Van Chester Thompkins
Petitioner: Mary Berghuis, Warden
Respondent: Van Chester Thompkins

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Citation: 547 F.3d 572

Mary Berghuis, Warden
v.
Van Chester Thompkins
Question Presented:

I. Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them. II. Whether the Court of Appeals failed to afford the State court the deference it was entitled to under 28 U.S.C. ยง2254(d), when it granted habeas relief with respect to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim where the substantial evidence of Thompkin's guilt allowed the State court to reasonably reject the claim.

Question:

1) Did the Sixth Circuit improperly expand the Miranda rule when it held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were violated? 2) Did the Sixth Circuit fail to give the state court deference when it granted habeas corpus relief with respect to defendant's ineffective counsel argument when there was substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt?

BERGHUIS v. THOMPKINS
ORAL ARGUMENT

March 1, 2010

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 5-4
Opinion By: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)