Remaining silence during an interrogation is one of several ways a suspect can use to invoke the equivocal rights, contrary to many that this approach does not equate to unequivocal invocation. This is because, a suspect upon arrest is granted the right to remain silent, and the suspect should not be tortured to make them talk, as they are innocent until proven guilty by the court of law. However, in the case that the suspect chooses to remain silent during the interrogation period, the interrogating officers are trained on reading the body language of the suspect, which is included in the statement used by the jury during court proceedings. An unequivocal Invocation standard is reached when a suspect chooses to remain silent throughout the interrogation period. For instance, in Berghuis v. Thompkins. 560 US 370 (2010, Thompkins, was advised on the choices he had in answering to the interrogators, whereby he chose to remain silent during the entire period, though he answered only one question at the end of the session. However, depending on the observations recorded during the interrogation, the statement presented before the court was enough to implement an appropriate verdict against the suspect. Remaining silent during interrogation has an implication that the interrogating officer has the option of using observable body language of the suspect in writing a statement that is presented during trial to help in the determination of the case.
Work cited
Gillard, N. D., Rogers, R., Kelsey, K. R., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). An investigation of implied Miranda waivers and Powell wording in a mock-crime study. Law and human behavior, 38(5), 501.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
