Final answer:
The statement regarding Berghuis v. Thompkins is true; defendants must unambiguously assert their right to remain silent to waive it effectively. This aligns with the standards outlined in Miranda v. Arizona and confirmed in subsequent cases like Salinas v. Texas.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that defendants must make an affirmative statement or action to expressly waive their right to remain silent or to have a lawyer present during questioning in Berghuis v. Thompkins is True. The Supreme Court decision in Berghuis v.
Thompkins clarified that to effectively waive the right to remain silent, a suspect must do so unambiguously. The right to remain silent and the necessity of being informed about it is part of the Miranda rights, cryptically drawn from Miranda v.
Arizona, which established that criminal suspects must be made aware of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney during custodial interrogation. However, if a suspect wishes to invoke these rights, it must be done clearly and affirmatively.
In Salinas v. Texas, it was further emphasized that pre-arrest silence or simply standing mute does not invoke the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination; one must expressly invoke this right. The importance of being advised of one's right to remain silent is underscored by the precedent set in Miranda v. Arizona, along with warnings of the right to have counsel present during interrogations.