|
|
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Justice seeks to overturn recent Miranda rulingBy Pierre Thomas/CNN
March 10, 1999 WASHINGTON (March 10) -- The Justice Department is seeking to overturn a recent federal appellate court ruling that some people fear weakens the Miranda warning given by police to suspects. In a motion filed in Richmond on Monday, Justice attorneys wrote that a three-judge appellate panel erred in its 2-1 ruling last month that concluded that Miranda lacked constitutional standing. The attorneys argued that the appellate court "may not disregard controlling Supreme Court precedent." "Miranda has never been overruled, and it is the Supreme Court's sole province to pass on the validity of its decisions," the brief said. The Justice Department asked for a new hearing before the full 11-member 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court's historic 1966 ruling in Miranda vs. Arizona declared that police must inform suspects that they have a right to an attorney, a right to remain silent nd that their statements may be used against them. Suspects are also to be told that a lawyer will be appointed to them if they can't afford one. But for now, federal prosecutors in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina are bound by the ruling that a little-known federal law effectively overrides the Supreme Court's Miranda ruling. The 4th Circuit ruling came in the case of Charles Dickerson, who is charged with 18 bank robberies in three states. Dickerson confessed to committing a bank robbery in Alexandria, Virginia, but was not read his Miranda rights. A lower court judge said the confession was inadmissible. The appeals panel overturned that ruling. The appeals court opinion said prosecutors may use a suspect's voluntary confession, even if he or she had not been advised of those Miranda rights. The court cited a law passed by Congress in 1968 that was designed to essentially reverse Miranda. It allows the use of voluntary confessions where suspects were not read their rights. That law, known in legal circles as "3501," has never been enforced by the Justice Department, which believes it is unconstitutional. The issue is likely to ultimately end up at the Supreme Court. Conservatives have long complained that the Miranda ruling is burdensome and allows criminals to go free on "technicalities." Supporters argue the ruling has reduced forced confessions in violation of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and ensured proper standards by arresting officers. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Wednesday, March 10, 1999
• House to debate sending troops to Kosovo • GOP leaders pledge to lock away Social Security trust fund • Republicans hammer Gore over U.S. policy toward China • Opening statements begin in McDougal trial • White House names new communications director • Lamar Alexander kicks off second GOP bid without the plaid • Justice seeks to overturn recent Miranda ruling • Gore: Campaign will 'be about the American people' • Senate hears divergent views on Cuba policy • Committee sends steel imports quota bill to House • House panel overwhelmingly approves ATM fee disclosure measure • Campaigns under way to influence Social Security overhaul debate • Alabama's Senate standoff moves to state Supreme Court • Appeals court upholds charges against Cisneros • Arkansas lawmakers reject money for Clinton museum • Reno, lawmakers wrangle over anti-crime funds • Gov. Bush's abortion stance challenged • House votes to protect nursing home patients | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
