. In this case, after agreeing to hear the case (known as granting certiorari) the United States Supreme Court held that detectives interrogating Thompkins did not violate Thompkins’ Miranda rights in obtaining his confession.
Read the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins. You may also find it helpful to listen to the oral arguments the lawyers made before the United States Supreme Court.
Prepare an argument for:
If your last name begins with A through M you must argue in favor of the majority’s decision in the case. (Finding that the detectives did not violate Thompkins’ Miranda rights).
If your last name begins with N through Z you must argue against the majority’s decision and in favor of the dissent. The dissent argued that Thompkins’ confession was illegally obtained in violation of his Miranda rights.
Remember to support your required position with what you have learned from this week’s assigned reading about constitutional safeguards.
. In this case, after agreeing to hear the case (known as granting certiorari) t
Important - Read this before proceeding
These instructions reflect a task our writers previously completed for another student. Should you require assistance with the same assignment, please submit your homework details to our writers’ platform. This will ensure you receive an original paper, you can submit as your own. For further guidance, visit our ‘How It Works’ page.
