In a Supreme Court ruling today Justices clarified it to be the responsibility of the individual who has been arrested to invoke his right to remain silent and that anything he says after having been provided his rights is admissible as evidence. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-miranda-20100602,0,1344181.story

For far too long the Justice System has bent over backwards to protect the rights of the person arrested over the rights of the victim and society.   The mere "Mirandizing" of an individual should be sufficient.   After all the Miranda rule does warn that anything said may be held against the individual.  What value is this warning if appellate courts expect the police to invoke the right to silence on behalf of the defendant?  

As one would expect, Justice Sotomayor  joined Ruth Bader Ginzburg, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens in the dissent.   We can also expect that had Elena Kegan been on the bench in the place of John Paul Stevens that the vote would have remained the same.   It is a tragedy that our court system has for so long been dominated by persons of a persuasion that the state has no rights and the defendant criminal has all.   No one wants an innocent person railroaded by an overly aggressive system but the purpose of the courts should be to determine the truth and where the state must be perfect in its rules for gathering evidence the defendant is provided unreasonable protection in this regard.  This court got it right.   Kennedy wrote for the majority in stating that the defendant must share some of the responsibility for invoking his rights.  The police should have no responsibility to continually remind him that he should remain silent after he has been told the consequences of saying anything at all.