In another example of why lawyers are wasting tax dollars, a Supreme Court (yes the highest court in the U.S.) case that centers on whether breaking your silence during a police interrogation means that you waived your right to remain silent.
After advising respondent Thompkins of his rights, in full compliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, Detective Helgert and another Michigan officer interrogated him about a shooting in which one victim died. At no point did Thompkins say that he wanted to remain silent, that he did not want to talk with the police, or that he wanted an attorney. He was largely silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but near the end, he answered “yes” when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. He moved to suppress his statements, claiming that he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, that he had not waived that right, and that his inculpatory statements were involuntary.
The fact that there was a lawyer out there somewhere who defended this kid and made the case that he should be let out of prison because he blurted an incriminating response (which is the whole point of an interrogation) does not raise my opinion of the lawyerly profession.