Appeals judges set aside Miranda

Court says confessions given voluntarily still could be admissible

February 10, 1999|By Lyle Denniston | Lyle Denniston,SUN NATIONAL STAFF

WASHINGTON -- Saying that Congress has cast aside the Supreme Court's famous "Miranda" decision, a federal appeals court has ruled that federal prosecutors may use confessions made by suspects who were not warned about their rights.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., in a 2-1 ruling Monday in a Maryland man's bank robbery case, upheld a little-known 1968 law that Congress passed explicitly to overrule Miranda vs. Arizona in federal criminal cases.

If a confession is voluntary, as judged one case at a time, the absence of Miranda warnings or flaws in giving those warnings will not bar such an admission as evidence, the court said.

"No longer will criminals who have voluntarily confessed their crimes be released on mere technicalities," the court majority commented.

The decision sets the stage for a potentially historic fight over Congress' power to undo a controversial Supreme Court ruling that added to criminal suspects' rights.

The 1968 law treats the Miranda decision as only a ruling on evidence, not a constitutional mandate, that Congress was free to override.

Agreeing, the appeals court said: "Congress possesses the legislative authority to overrule judicially created rules of evidence and procedure that are not required by the Constitution."

Applying to federal cases in Maryland and four other mid-Atlantic states, the new ruling relied upon a 3-decades-old law that the Justice Department contends is unconstitutional and that the department has refused to use to try to save confessions that would violate the Miranda decision.

If the law is tested in the Supreme Court, Attorney General Janet Reno warned Congress in 1997, the Clinton administration might not defend it even there. The law, she said, should not be used to clear the way for confessions that violate the Miranda rules "unless and until the Supreme Court overrules or modifies that decision."

The Justice Department said it was studying the ruling and would have no comment.

As a result of the decision, a trial can be scheduled in federal court in Alexandria, Va., for Charles T. Dickerson, formerly of Takoma Park but still a Maryland resident, on charges of bank robbery, conspiracy to rob banks, and use of guns in violent crimes. He has been implicated in at least seven bank robberies in Maryland and three in Virginia.

A confession he gave to police before getting Miranda warnings can be used at the trial, because it was voluntary, when judged under the more relaxed provisions of the 1968 law, the appeals court said.

Dickerson's lawyer, James Warren Hundley of Fairfax, Va., said he had just learned of the ruling and had not talked to Dickerson about it.

If there is a challenge to it, he said, the first step would be to ask the full Circuit Court to review the decision of the three-judge panel, rather than go directly to the Supreme Court.

Even though the Miranda decision is technically a ruling that governs only evidence in federal cases, the Supreme Court has regularly applied it to strike down confessions in state cases where there were no warnings. So state and local police generally feel bound by it.

The practical effect of the ruling, if it withstands a likely appeal, would be that federal agents would no longer have to tell suspects, whom they want to question, about the right to remain silent and their right to a lawyer, legal observers said.

Police at all levels of government have grown accustomed to giving Miranda warnings and may continue to do so, those observers said. But, if they leave them out in federal cases, or make a mistake in the timing or content of those warnings, a voluntary confession will not be barred.

"Even after this ruling, we will still have police giving Miranda warnings, but technical slip-ups will not redound to the benefit of the criminal," said Paul D. Kamenar, executive legal director of the Washington Legal Foundation, the conservative legal advocacy group that the appeals court appointed to defend the 1968 law when the Justice Department refused to do so.

"This is a great victory for basic law enforcement and for the safety of the public," Kamenar added.

Lynne A. Battaglia, U.S. attorney for Maryland, said all federal agencies require their investigating officers to give Miranda warnings and will continue to do so. Giving such warnings, she said, "is a good thing. It allows the jury to see the care to which these investigative agents went through to interview somebody."

Stephen A. Saltzburg, a George Washington University professor of criminal law, said the ruling was significant because it means that "Congress could simply say, `We don't like Miranda, and we don't have to provide a substitute.' " He said the 1968 law uses only vague language to define when a confession is voluntary.

The professor, though, said he agreed with the appeals court that the Miranda decision was not based on the Constitution, even though that ruling was designed to root out forced confessions that would be unconstitutional.

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.