Mr. Thompkins was arrested by Michigan officers for murder after a shooting occurred in which one victim died and the other survived. When Mr. Thompkins was arrested as a suspect in the shooting, the officers read him his Miranda rights providing him the opportunity to ask for council, remain silent, or to waive his rights, and anything he said or did could be held against him in a court of law. During the interrogation process, Mr. Thompkins did not waive his rights, ask for counsel, nor did he state his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. [1] However, he did refuse to sign the Miranda form and remained silent during the three hour interrogation process except for when he answered “yes, to the arresting officers question asking if he prayed to God to ask for forgiveness after the murder of…show more content… Thompkins claims his answer should not be perceived as a waiver because police never obtained a waiver. [3] Police argue that after they have provided Miranda warnings, they have the right to interrogate the suspect until the suspect states their intent to invoke their rights. [4] In addition, Thompkins ask for a new trial for ineffective assistance to counsel in connection with the Sixth Amendment right of an impartial jury. Thompkins claims his accomplice, Eric Purifoy, who had been previously convicted of assault and firearm offences and acquitted of murder and assault in this case, was responsible for the shooting. [5] In Mr. Purifoy’s testimony in the Thompkins case, he claimed he did not see who the shooter was and the prosecution claimed he was lying. [6]Thompkins claims prejudice of insufficient counsel because the jury was only instructed to take Mr. Purifoy’s credibility into account and not that fact that it is possible that he lied on the stand. The trial court denied both
