Miranda Vs Dickerson Research Paper

Miranda versus Dickerson
The United States Supreme Court is, for all intents and purposes, the final authority on legal matters regarding the federal or state governments. Additionally, the Supreme Court asks as the determining body to the constitutionality of laws made by either the federal or state governments. As such an authority, the Supreme Court is often faced with cases that emulate previous cases. At times the Court upholds its decisions, often times due to the concept of stare decisis or precedence, and other times the Court reverses its opinion. The most common reasons that the Court may overturn its decisions include: a shift if the ideology of the court, a shift in the political climate of the United States, or a change in the social culture has rendered a law or previous decision ineffective. Despite the list of possible motivators for the Court to reverse a decision, it is still uncommon to do so. Many of the factors that could contribute to a decision reversal also have the potential to be the reason the
Court upholds a law. An example of such a pairing of cases is Miranda v. Arizona (1965) and Dickerson v. United States (1999). The question posed in Miranda: are law enforcement agencies permitted to interrogate suspect without notifying the suspect of their right to counsel? Following this decision the argument rose in Dickerson, some 34 years later: can congress, by way of legislation, overrule the Miranda warnings to allow those statements that would be inadmissible otherwise? As expected the Court upheld its decision to utilize the warnings prior to interrogation suspects. However, the reasoning is more complex than mere stare decisis. An investigation into each case, their arguments, and the opinions as they were written may further expound upon the issue.
Miranda v. Arizona Prior to the Miranda case, the Warren Court made decisions regarding the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that forecasted their direction in Miranda. The most notable case that laid foundation for the decision in Miranda is Gideon v. Wainwright. This is the landmark case that led to the establishment of the public defender program in the United States. Another case is Massiah v. United States, which the Court established a test that provides suspects protection from self –incrimination once the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been enacted. Another landmark case which gave insight to the climate of the Warren Court in regards to defendants’ rights is Escobedo v. Illinois. The decision in Escobedo determined that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel begins at the accusatory stage of police investigation. Given the decisions of Massiah, Escobedo, and Gideon, the stage was properly set for the Ernesto Miranda’s day in court.1
In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was taken into custody as a suspect in the rape and kidnapping of a 17 year old girl.
While in custody, Miranda was interrogated by police for hours until he signed a written confession. Not once during the interrogation was Miranda informed of his rights to counsel or to remain silent. During the trial his court appointed attorney objected to the admission of the statement on the grounds that Miranda was not informed of his rights. Given the amount of evidence, including the confession itself, the court overruled the objection. After being found guilty and sentenced to 20-30 years in prison for his crimes, Miranda appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. Due to the fact that Miranda failed to specifically request an attorney, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The case was then forwarded to the Supreme Court along with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v.
Stewart.2
The Decision
The decision, delivered by Chief Justice Warren, was in favor of Miranda. The Court held that an individual in a state where his or her freedom is restricted by an agent of the law, police officer or detective, must be afforded the opportunity to exercise his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to freedom from self-incrimination and to counsel, respectively. Effectively, the Court determined that a custodial interrogation is found to be unconstitutional if the individual being interrogated is not informed of his or her rights. In the words of Chief Justice Warren himself.3
“At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent. For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed simply to make the aware of it – the threshold requirement for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. More important, such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere….Further, the warning will show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it.”4 As a result of the Court’s decision, Miranda was given a new trial in 1967. Due to new evidence uncovered in the subsequent investigation, Ernesto Miranda was once again convicted, despite having his confession considered inadmissible as evidence. He spent the next eleven years having constant encounter with the law. Not all of them bad, many local law enforcement officers saw Miranda as a local celebrity. Miranda was known to autograph the “Miranda warning” cards that police officers were mandated to carry with them. January 31, 1976, Ernesto Miranda was killed by a knife wound in a bar fight. In a circumstance of complete irony, Miranda’s assailant was read his rights first in English, then in Spanish.5
The Impact The Court’s decision in Miranda had a significant impact on the practice of criminal investigations in the United States. A new standard was developed. The issuance of the Miranda warning, named for Ernesto Miranda, became a requirement in all law enforcement agencies in the nation. Many agencies drafted a pre-typed form for suspects to sign in order to affirm being made aware of their rights and their decision to exercise or waive those rights. The Miranda decision also had cultural impacts. Various forms of entertainment began including the Miranda warnings where applicable. Polls conducted in the years following Miranda, showed that law enforcement officers found that issuance of the Miranda warnings proved to be detrimental to criminal investigations. Conviction rates were also claimed to be swayed by the development of Miranda. It would turn out that the cause of change in the statistics is directly attributed to the Professional Era of Policing. Data collected was more accurate, as a result conviction rates when down considerably.6
Dickerson v. United States The Miranda debate brought about the emergence of key players in Dickerson. One such player is Paul Cassell. Cassell has an unquestionable law pedigree. He clerked for both, Justice Scalia on the US Court of Appeals and Chief Justice Burger. With such an impressive résumé, Cassell’s firm stance against Miranda is closely observed. Cassell criticizes Miranda for handcuffing law enforcement officer in the realm of criminal investigations. He was written numerous books and essays on the topic. It is quite understandable why the Court would all Paul Cassell to defend the position of the lower courts in Dickerson. The other key player in this case is the Federal Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. More commonly known as 18 USC §3501, was a piece of legislation whose sole purpose was to circumvent Miranda. Supported and instigated by Richard Nixon, it remained unquestioned until Dickerson.7
Charles Dickerson had been arrested in connection with several bank robberies Eventually Dickerson confessed to his part as getaway driver in the robberies in question. Dickerson gave and signed his statement before being read his Miranda rights. The Fourth Circuit Court calls the Washington Legal group to defend the Omnibus Act. Paul Cassell is called to defend the provision before the Supreme Court. Solicitor General recommends the case in order to defend Miranda. When brought before district court, it was determined that while the Miranda warning may not have been given until after the statement was made, 18 USC §3501 stated that a statement given voluntarily was admissible regardless of whether or not the suspect was Mirandized. The decision was upheld in the Court of Appeals.8 When it finally reached the Supreme Court, one question lingered: is the Miranda decision interpreted as Constitutional or is it a merely a Supreme Court ruling that can be overruled by legislation? This question outweighed the assertion of the lower courts that time the Miranda warnings are given is unimportant, so long as it is done.
The Decision
In a 7-2 decision, delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Court ruled to reverse the Circuit Court decision. Citing previous decisions where applicable and employing the principal of stare decisis, the Court determined Miranda to be a constitutional rule. As such it could not be overruled by congressional legislation. This ruling came as a surprise to many as it had been understood by some that the Miranda warnings were a guideline set forth by the Court not a derivative of the Constitution. In terms of the case itself, the Court recognized the propensity for coercion that the environment of police custody created.
In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), we held that certain warnings must be given before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation could be admitted in evidence. In the wake of that decision, Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. § 3501, which in essence laid down a rule that the admissibility of such statements should turn only on whether or not they were voluntarily made. 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.9
The Dissent On the other side of the opinion, Justice Scalia was joined by Justice Thomas. They argued the limitation that the ruling could put on police action. The dissenting argument addressed some of the very same points that were made by those who were in opposition to Miranda. One of those points being the added pressure placed upon the law enforcement agents when conducting the custodial interrogations. One prevalent point of contention was the increase capacity for a guilty criminal to go free on what is seen as a technicality. Probably the strongest argument made by Justice Scalia was the apparent ability of the Court to not only interpret and apply the Constitution, but to expand it as well. In the eyes of Justice Scalia, that action is inherently anti-democratic in nature.10

Along with the arguments raised in the dissent, opponents to Miranda considered the decision to be simply an interpretation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments rather than the literal meaning. Additionally, an argument is made both in the dissent and by others about the constitutionality of Miranda’s application. The decision in Miranda is a supervisory decision placed upon both federal and state courts, as well as D.C. courts. However it is not within the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to fulfill a supervisory position over state courts, particularly select state courts. The caveat to this is a constitutional interpretation.11 In a study of Miranda and Dickerson, many questions arise as to the motivation of the Court when each decision was made. Miranda was decided under the Warren Court, notorious for its liberal ideology and leftward decisions. Conversely, Dickerson was decided under the Rehnquist Court, known for the exact opposite ideology of the Warren Court. How can two fundamentally polar opposite courts agree on such a controversial issue? The answer is found in the back stories of each case. The Warren Court was in the process of making sweeping changes in favor of defendants’ rights. Gideon, Escobedo, and Massiah are all proof of this. Given such precedence, it is quite understandable what the mindset of the Court was at the time. The Warren Court ushered in a new era in policing that allowed for more clear and concise convictions. On the contrary, the Rehnquist Court rendered a decision that was just as much a power move as it was a just ruling. Had the Court decided in favor of the United States and the lower courts, a monumental loophole would have been formed. By deciding against the U.S., the Court took a firm stance against the notion that Congress had the ability to work around judicial rule. While the decision, as it was given states no confirmation of such a motive it remains readily apparent. The scenario of Miranda and Dickerson is just one entry in a list of Supreme Court decision pairs that were contrary to expectation. It was the case in this situation that stare decisis was stronger than the ideological shift of the Court. The only true inference that can be made is the unpredictability of the Court. The usual indicators of the Court’s composition, history, or external influences fail to establish a strict guideline by which the Court’s decision can be ascertained. It serves as a cold comfort of the political independence of the judiciary in the face of changing times. Hopefully, this remains a staple of the United States Supreme Court in the years to come.

Notes 1. Epstein 505-8 2. Ibid. 3. Miranda v. Arizona - 384 U.S. 436 (1966) 4. Ibid. 5. Wrightsman 52-3 6. Ibid. 61-64 7. Cassell 8. Ibid. 9. Dickerson v. United States – 530 U.S. 428 10. Cassell 11. Wrightsman 61-68