Which case states that a defendant must affirmatively and unambiguously assert his right to remain silent?

Which case states that a defendant must affirmatively and unambiguously assert his right to remain silent?

• A. Berghuis v. Thompkins
• B. Maryland v Shatzer
• C. Caldwell v State
• D. State v Jones

Answer: (A)

Invoking the right to remain silent under Miranda must be explicit and unambiguous. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court said that simply remaining silent or giving equivocal responses isn’t enough to invoke that right. A suspect must clearly and affirmatively state that they want to stop questioning or wish to remain silent. If there’s no clear invocation, police may continue questioning after advising them of their rights, and any statements made can be used in court. That means the best answer is the case that establishes this clear-invocation standard. The other cases involve different aspects of interrogation—such as custody breaks or other admissibility issues—so they don’t establish how a defendant must invoke the right to silence.

Invoking the right to remain silent under Miranda must be explicit and unambiguous. In Berghuis v. Thompkins, the Supreme Court said that simply remaining silent or giving equivocal responses isn’t enough to invoke that right. A suspect must clearly and affirmatively state that they want to stop questioning or wish to remain silent. If there’s no clear invocation, police may continue questioning after advising them of their rights, and any statements made can be used in court. That means the best answer is the case that establishes this clear-invocation standard. The other cases involve different aspects of interrogation—such as custody breaks or other admissibility issues—so they don’t establish how a defendant must invoke the right to silence.