Why is the future of Miranda in doubt? The Supreme Court decision of Miranda v. Arizona in 1966 set a federal standard to read all suspects the rights that they hold. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, the right for an attorney to be appointed if one cannot afford one, and the right for the attorney to be present during questions. For about 33 years all evidence during questioning has been thrown out in cases where the Miranda rights were not read before questioning. In 1968 Congress passed a law that said federal courts do not have to dismiss confessions made without Miranda warnings, it is known as Section 3501. This law has remained dormant for about 30 years, until the appeals court ruling in the case of a Maryland man, Charles Dickerson, accused in seven bank robberies in Maryland and Virginia. He made incriminating statements to FBI agents before he was read his Miranda rights. University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, representing conservative Washington Legal Foundation, waited for the opportunity to use Section 3501 until this case. He argued that Section 3501 allowed the courts to use Dickerson’s statements regardless of the Miranda warnings. The appeals court agreed to Cassell’s arguments, and the decision has gone to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has agreed to look at the case, Dickerson vs. U.S., 99-5525, in the new year. Its controversy has been centered around voluntary confessions and if the 5th amendment requires the rights to be read. The Miranda warnings have been suspended in 5 states to this date and the Supreme courts awaited decision will decide the faith of the Miranda warnings. ...
