Research Paper The People v. Antwion Thompson The advent of the Miranda decision

Research Paper
The People v. Antwion Thompson
The advent of the Miranda decision and the ensuing impact it has had on a criminal defendant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, has changed law enforcement’s interrogation tactics significantly. Prior to custodial interrogation, you must now advise criminal defendants of their constitutionally guaranteed rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
If you violate the requirements of the Miranda decision, the defendant’s statement will be suppressed and will be unavailable for use during the prosecutor’s case in chief.
Antwion Thompson was a somewhat criminally sophisticated eighteen-year-old adult when he brutally murdered his then seventeen-year-old girlfriend Arie Bivins in her parent’s home. During interrogation, Thompson initially told investigators that he found Bivins’ body when he went to check on her after becoming concerned when he could not reach her by telephone. Ultimately Thompson admitted his role in Bivins’ death, even going so far as to reveal that after fatally stabbing Bivins, he returned to her near lifeless body and cut her throat “…so she couldn’t tell…”
After the initial portion of the interrogation, Thompson was advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda. Thompson said he understood those rights and he continued to answer questions, including his recitation of his earlier incriminating statements.
Thompson had agreed to wait at the police station until the investigators could complete their work at the crime scene and come there to talk with him. That wait stretched into six hours. During that time, Thompson slept on a couch in an unlocked break room and watched TV. He also had access to a bathroom and was offered both food and drink.
When the interrogation began, Thompson was not advised of his constitutional under Miranda. This was done because prior to the interrogation beginning, Thompson was offered and even encouraged to leave the police station if he was too tired to participate. Having been given the choice to remain or leave (Beheler Admonishment), Thompson chose to remain. This effectively transformed what because of the lengthy delay could have been considered a custodial interrogation requiring a Miranda admonishment, into a consensual encounter, which did not necessitate such safeguards.
After confessing to the murder, Thompson was transported to the county jail where he spent the night in custody. The following morning, he was again admonished of his
rights per Miranda. After that admonishment, Thompson agreed to participate in a video- taped reenactment of the crime during which he made additional incriminating statements.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in reviewing the Thompson case granted Thompson’s request to suppress his confession based largely on their belief that Thompson, despite declining the offer to leave the police department was in fact in custody and should have been properly advised of Miranda at the outset. Of the three reviewing justices, one dissented and argued that Thompson’s confession was properly obtained and admitted.
Are the societal benefits of protecting the constitutional rights of the accused outweighed by the potential loss of evidence when a criminal defendant either chooses not to make a statement, or in the case of Thompson, makes a statement, which is later suppressed?
Do you concur with the majority opinion in this case or do you join in the dissent? If you could modify or overturn the Miranda decision what changes would you make to the interrogation requirements placed on the police? Would you continue to penalize the police for violations the same way? Would you lessen or perhaps strengthen the penalty? If lessened would that invite abuse? If strengthened what sanctions would you impose and how might those sanctions impact societies’ ability to hold its criminals accountable?
Examine the issue critically from both perspectives. If you quote a source, cite that Sources