Show Notes
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Berghuis v. Thompkins.
A man is arrested, informed of his rights, and interrogated. But for two hours and 45 minutes of questioning, he is mostly silent. At trial he argued that he was exercising his right to silence under Miranda v. Arizona, and police should have stopped the interrogation. The Appeals Court thought so, too.
The question before the court: was the Appeals Court correct in its interpretation of the right to remain silent?
---
For complete episode information, check out our episode guide on our website at https://relitigated.com/2025/07/29/15-berghuis-v-thompkins/.
More from Relitigated
In the season 2 finale we re-argue the Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp.
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
In this special episode we bring you the first ever edition of Objection! The Relitigated Game Show.
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Griggs v. Duke Power Company.
In this episode we re-argue the Supreme Court case Watts v. U.S.