Congress' Right to Remain Silent in Dickerson v. United States - Or - How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Miranda v. Arizona
Muller, Andrew W.
INTRODUCTION|Any watcher of television police programs will recognize the following as familiar: You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before you answer any questions. In Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court concluded that authorities must utilize procedural safeguards in order to protect the self-incrimination rights of those persons taken into custody. The warnings the Court in Miranda articulated were a required prerequisite in order to overcome the pressures inherent in the atmosphere of interrogations. The warnings were also a prerequisite for the admissibility of any statement made by the defendant. In Dickerson v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that Miranda was a constitutional decision and could not be overturned by an act of Congress. The question presented in Dickerson concerned whether 18 U.S.C. Section 35018 governed the admission of confessions or whether Miranda governed such admissions. Such a question turned on whether the Miranda exclusionary rule was a constitutional requirement or whether Congress could modify such a rule...
34 Creighton L. Rev. 801 (2000-2001)
Creighton University School of Law