Need help? We are here

Unit 3 DB: Berghuis v. Thompkins
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 N 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 M 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.
If your opinion varies from the position you are being required to take, you may include such a statement in your discussion post.
In response to your peers: In response to your peers, consider your peers’ response. If they disagree with your response, consider the factual assumptions they have made which form the foundation of their opinion. Can you challenge those assumptions while furthering your discussion? If your responses are similar, consider posing a hypothetical question to test your peer’s conclusions.
Regardless of whether you are an attorney arguing in court or a business stakeholder pitching to shareholders or a potential client, adding support for your argument from appropriate resources strengthens your content. For this discussion board, be sure to include a citation to an appropriate source that supports the point you are making. (HINT: Your textbook is a great source!)
under 350 words

error: Content is protected !!