Home » » Criminal Law » Congress, you have the right-- to remain silent (Part II)

Congress, you have the right-- to remain silent (Part II)

© Richard C. Cleary

Alexandria, Virginia, 1997. The mid-day calm at an area bank is shattered as three men wearing black knit masks and rubber gloves burst into the bank. One man rushes to the nearest teller and waves a pistol in her face. Money is quickly shoved into a bag and then the robbers turn and run. They remain in hiding for several days, but the FBI investigation leads to one main suspect -- Charles Dickerson.

A search warrant is obtained for Mr. Dickerson's apartment and a little evidence turns up-- like the black knit mask, a pair of rubber gloves, a pistol and dye-stained money. Mr. Dickerson is brought in for questioning, and, in their zeal to finalize the case, the agents neglect to "Mirandize" Dickerson. After brief questioning Dickerson admits his involvement in the robbery and in several others in the suburbs of Washington. Dickerson is arrested and the FBI's air-tight case proceeds to court.

In the U.S. District Court, however, the case is dismissed because the agents obtained Dickerson's confession before they read him the Miranda Rights. The government appealed and the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the charges. The majority supported its decision in favor of the government by citing the language of 18 USC section 3501, stating the Miranda Warnings are only one factor in an analysis of the "voluntariness" of a confession. Under 3501's "totality of the circumstances" analysis Dickerson's confession is admissible. An appeal is taken by Dickerson to the U.S. Supreme Court, thus setting the stage for a showdown between Miranda and 18 USC 3501, between Congress and the Court. A showdown that has been thirty-two years in the making.

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision left little suspense, stating in the first paragraph of the decision:

"We hold that Miranda, being a constitutional decision of this Court, may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, and we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves. We therefore hold that Miranda and its progeny in this Court govern the admissibility of statements made during custodial interrogation in both state and federal courts."

The Court discussed the history of Miranda, beginning with a brief analysis of the cases prior to Miranda that focused on "voluntariness." Miranda, the Court stated changed the focus.

"Modern...custodial interrogation exacts a heavy toll on individual liberty and trades on the weakness of individuals. We concluded that the coercion inherent in custodial interrogation blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary statements and thus heightens the risk that an individual will not be accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment...not to be compelled to incriminate himself."

The copyright of the article Congress, you have the right-- to remain silent (Part II) in Criminal Law is owned by Richard C. Cleary. Permission to republish Congress, you have the right-- to remain silent (Part II) in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.