WASHINGTON -- The Clinton administration came to the defense yesterday of the Supreme Court's controversial 1966 Miranda decision, arguing that Congress had no power to tell courts to accept confessions by criminals who had not been given "Miranda warnings" about their rights.
In a case that appears headed for the Supreme Court, the Justice Department asked the full 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., to reconsider and scuttle a ruling last month by three of its members. That decision said that under a 1968 law passed by Congress, voluntary confessions can be admitted in federal cases even if a Miranda warning was not given.
On the contrary, the department said, the ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona "implements and protects constitutional rights," and thus can be overridden only by the Supreme Court or by a constitutional amendment, not by Congress or by lower courts.
Under the 1966 Miranda decision, police are required to tell any suspects they are holding -- before any questioning -- of the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer present, and to warn them that anything they say can be used against them in court. The warnings are designed to prevent coerced confessions.
The decision by the three-judge panel "raises an issue of exceptional importance" justifying full appeals court review, the department argued.
By a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel ruled that Miranda is not a constitutional ruling, so Congress was free to displace it, as it did, with a federal law that said a confession that was voluntary is to be admitted in federal court even if the suspect did not get Miranda warnings.
The Justice Department said that while Congress passed the 1968 confessions law "with the express purpose of overturning Miranda," the lawmakers had "no power to alter the substance of the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretations by legislation."
"Miranda has never been overruled, and it is the Supreme Court's sole province to pass on the continuing validity of its decisions."
Examining all of the court's rulings on Miranda warnings, from 1966 onward, the department said, "requires the conclusion that the court understands Miranda to rest on a constitutional foundation."
The clearest evidence of that, it added, is that "the Supreme Court has consistently applied Miranda to the states" -- something that it could not do if the ruling were not based upon the Constitution.
"Although the court has the power to announce rules of procedure and evidence binding on federal courts," it has not done so for state courts, because its authority in that realm "is limited to enforcing the commands of the U.S. Constitution," it added.
The department took its position in the case of a Maryland man, Charles T. Dickerson, formerly of Takoma Park, who faces charges stemming from at least seven bank robberies in Maryland and three in Virginia.
The key to the dispute in his case is a confession that he gave to police before getting Miranda warnings. The appeals court panel ruled that, despite the lack of warnings, the confession was given voluntarily, and thus can be used against Dickerson when he goes to trial.
Dickerson has asked the full appeals court to review the case, and the Justice Department's filing adds its support to that request.
Pub Date: 3/09/99